|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
02:37 PM - Electoral reform As I walked about this past week trying to harvest my fair share of the +50k sigs needed to get the Libertarian party recognized in the great state of Oklahoma, I found myself rebuffed in rather interesting ways. Many folks admitted outright (and with minimal prompting) that they had no desire for more than two choices on the ballot -- and some laughed out loud at themselves for doing so. This naturally set me to wondering -- why is it so damnably difficult to get third-parties noticed in this nation? In my deepening frustration and profound ignorance I turned to the internet to learn what the political scientists had to say and I found the following thoughts and references courtesy of the folks at Janda.org For almost 150 years, the U.S. has maintained a two-party system, which itself is rather unique among democratic party systems--as Jean Blondel shows in his classification of electoral systems. Why have we had only two dominant parties for so long when most other nations have a multiparty system? Our electoral system is the leading suspect. The French political scientist, Maurice Duverger, explained the influence of electoral laws on party systems in the late 1940s. One of his articles appears on our web site. I found the Duverger article particularly straightforward and insightful. All this time I thought the major parties had consolidated their hold on power gradually by adding statues to the books (e.g. restrictive ballot access) when the real culprit was the winner-take-all electoral scheme put into place at the founding of the republic. Alas and alack. (
Upon the whole, I am inclined to think that the far greater part, if not all, of those difficulties which have hitherto amused philosophers, and blocked up the way to knowled ge, are entirely owing to ourselves. We have first raised a dust, and then complain we cannot see. by online poker |
|||||||||
