Fixing what’s broken
A case for proportional representation instead of two major political parties.
The two major parties in the United States deserve to fade away.
That the electoral system continues to prop up the Republicans and the Democrats in the face of such obvious dysfunction testifies to a broken political process.
This month Donald J. Trump is being inaugurated as 47th President of the United States, returning to power after four years. Future historians may one day refer to those years as the Biden interregnum, a temporary blip in a longer Trump era. Although Trump was out of the White House, he continued to dominate the political debate in that country, as he had successfully turned the Republican Party, originally a 19th-century antislavery party, into a cult of personality. While the party once boasted libertarian, traditionalist and progressive wings, these have been largely supplanted by Trump loyalists, committed less to common principles than to the man himself.
Democrats could have mounted a more effective opposition, but Vice President Kamala Harris severely botched this effort. She might have distanced herself from President Biden’s more questionable policies, attending to economic issues that public opinion polls indicated were a priority for voters. Instead, she doubled down on “reproductive rights,” refusing even to consider religious freedom exemptions for physicians opposed to performing abortions. Democrats had already proved to have a blind spot with respect to religious freedom, and Harris only exacerbated this reputation. Small wonder many Americans thought it safer to vote for Trump, whatever his flaws.
A nation in crisis
What now? Trump has nominated a series of unusual figures to his cabinet, committed less to the legal mandates of their respective departments than to derailing the “deep state,” a supposed secret cabal controlling the business of government behind the scenes. Several of these figures carry the whiff of scandal and corruption, with, for example, a vaccine denier put in charge of the nation’s health.
In the Netherlands, the descendants of Abraham Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Party have been reduced to five seats in the Second Chamber of Parliament. Once a stable partner in successive coalition governments, the Christian Democratic Appeal appears to be fading from the scene. A proportional electoral system makes this possible. In my new book, Citizenship Without Illusions, I make a case for proportional representation (PR). Not only does it better represent the true convictions of voters, but it facilitates the demise of parties that fail to make a case for their continued existence.
If the United States were to adopt PR, the party system would become less rigid and more flexible. New parties could rise and take their place in Congress, and the old parties would disappear if they no longer served their original purposes. This would likely affect the presidency, at least indirectly, by opening up the political landscape to new and fresh ideas badly needed for a nation in crisis.
Thank you, David. I agree but don’t see how–if Canada couldn’t implement it because of the cowardice of the reigning three (and their desire for power once they form governments–I don’t see how the U.S. could. Whenever they’ve tried–Perot, Wallace, etc.–it’s been largely another cult of personality in my opinion. Whenever I hear people on U.S.A. television say, “. . . and God bless America” I wonder what they really mean. P.S.: I am a dual citizen but my USA relatives say I’m a Canadian (or socialist).
As an idea, “Proportional Representation” needs to be understood in terms of the normative demand upon “lawmakers”, elected Parliamentarians, to do justice in their accountable law-making. But a first step along such a normative path will be concerned with how elected representatives should see their task whatever the failings of the electoral system that has got them to where they are, sitting in the Parliament/Congress. They are, after all, accountable and should see themselves as such, accountable to their electors. However, when they view themselves , not as representatives of their electorates, but as delegates of their parties (where is the party that actually demonstrates this principle?), they become blind to the fact that though a voter did not cast a vote to give them his/her preference they are nevertheless that voter’s representative from that electorate. But if Parliamentarians need to be educated about this most basic – and difficult to grasp – fact of where we are in Representative Democratic Governance, then it’s also the electorate that needs such basic education big time. And when have we encountered any political party that develops this outlook on the system in which they seemingly have so much clout in their electoral education? Enough! David is right when he starts as he does: “The two major parties in the United States deserve to fade away.” But the US in its failed two-party state on this score does not have it on its own.