Would 35% victories work in the US? Mexico goes 58% left & the RW wins

[papau]

Folks often point to countries like Israel as examples of successful multi-party systems, as they try to justify such multi-party splitting of the left in the US. Of course since a parliamentary system always fits a multi-party approaches like a glove, and since we do not have a parliamentary system but instead have a winner take all system, one wonder's just how a true multi-party approach would work in the US.

Now the 2000 Nader folks all claim they did not effectively put the RW into 8 years of power. So rather than discuss that election I thought the recent Mexico election would be an interesting practical lesson on the effect of splitting the left into multiple parties in a winner take all election system.

I won't even discuss if 35% victories work to give a mandate to govern (in Mexico Calderón won with 35.89 percent of the vote vs López Obrador's 35.31 percent) in a winner take all election, since we have all seen Bush claim a mandate from 2000 and then go on to try to reverse 70 years of social justice progress based on that getting that less votes than the other side mandate.

But Mexico is a good surrogate for the US in this question. Mexico is an example of a country with multi-party elections of a strong president and a bicameral congress (Congreso de la Unión) divided into an upper chamber, or Senate (Cámara de Senadores), and a lower chamber, or Chamber of Deputies (Cámara de Diputados) - all of which souns like the United States. Indeed Mexico with the traditional "appointed for life" supreme court justices, and indeed with the entire federal judiciary practicing a traditional submission of their resignations at the beginning of each 6 year presidential term, has a stronger winner take all presidential office than the US.

In the current Mexico election we had the leftest Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and the center left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and Calderon's right wing PAN party, and a result of:

FELIPE CALDERON, PAN 35.89 pct

ANDRES MANUEL LOPEZ OBRADOR, PRD 35.31 pct

ROBERTO MADRAZO, PRI 22.27 pct

So the left got near 58% of the vote, and now the right will govern for 6 more years.

Perhaps the 3rd part folks in the US might want to rethink how they get to a not RW controlled government? Does anyone really think that we have only "2 corporate parties" and the disaster of the last 6 years for social Justice, civil rights, tax fairness, and economic fairness would have been the same if the other "corporate party" (the Democratic Party per the 3rd party folks) had won power?

Or am I missing the point and obfuscating the issue of the need for 3rd parties and I should see that justice requires the Dems to not oppose the splitting of the left and center-left by such parties?

[billbuckhead]

1. Also happened in Canada and Germany

[papau]

2. True, but parliamentary systems adapt and force coalitions - winner take

all freezes the other side out for the next 8 years - at least with the GOP in power.

[Selatius]

3. In answer to your big question

Does anyone really think that we have only "2 corporate parties" and the disaster of the last 6 years for social Justice, civil rights, tax fairness, and economic fairness would have been the same if the other "corporate party" (the Democratic Party per the 3rd party folks) had won power?

The two parties are rather corporatized when one hits on issues that hit corporate interests hardest. We're talking about foreign policy. I guess an extension of that is trade policy. Look throughout the last 100 years of US involvement in other countries and tell me Democratic leaders have had an effect on curbing the incredible abuses and atrocities committed against the poor and the weak in other countries. From the rice paddies of Viet Nam to the hot jungles of Nicaragua, the federal government has turned so many people against the US for the sake of serving its corporate masters.

Comparatively speaking, we'd be better off under Democrats, but even if Democrats were in power, I'd still say we could do far better than that. Ralph Nader's criticism was crude at best because it left no room for differences that truly exist between the two parties. A more nuanced criticism, one that does take into account those differences, can be found by reading the works of people like Noam Chomsky.

[papau]

7. I agree - and feel Federal only financing of elections is the only answer

I do not see how 3rd parties help.

[Selatius]

11. It's the answer, but there's a hefty problem to that solution

For too many politicians, an easy access to funding could be found by soliciting donations from monied interests. Unfortunately, this means that establishing a public financing mechanism would mean for many that they'd have to "bite the hand that feeds them." The thought of powerful corporate interests setting up front groups to air advertisements that attack you through the newspaper, the radio, and the television for having the gall to cut off their access to government is one very, very few politicians are able to tolerate.

There have been only two states so far that have passed clean elections laws, and those two are Maine and Arizona.

[papau]

12. Perhaps it will finally get us electing folks with spine and character? or

we will easily see the corporate shills with no smokescreen of there is no other way to get elected.

[liberaldemocrat7]

19. Until we get public financing we have to pressure the companies

that give money to both parties to get us the progressive legislation we want. How? We have something they need from us. Money. Set conditions for buying their products and tell these CEOs that unless you get the GOP to pass a list of legislation we will go on strike against you and not buy your product or service.

[liberaldemocrat7]

18. The left split in England for 18 years

and you got "compassionate" Maggie and the Major for 18 years.

[Selatius]

20. How is that relevant to what I said?

[sabbat hunter]

4. the PRI

is a right wing party not a left wing one.

and they are very corrupt as well.

[leveymg]

6. The PRI is not a "Right-wing party" in the traditional sense.

What they are is the decrepit, corrupt vestige of the original revolutionary junta. Their rhetoric remains radical and populist, but they're little better than the corporatist GOP Mafia that rules El Norte.

[papau]

9. they sell the policies of the left and get votes on that basis. The

corruption and corporatist compromises they seem infected with does not change the election and government policy discussion.

[bread_and_roses]

17. Slightly different wording and that describes the Democrats

Obviously, the Democrats do not sell the policies of the "Left" in this Country, but does promote itself as advancing the interests of ordinary Working People:

a vision based on the strength and power of millions of economically empowered, socially diverse and politically active Americans...a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor...our Party's founders decided that wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule...

...fought for the League of Nations, established the Federal Reserve Board, and passed the first labor and child welfare laws...energizing citizens around the belief that their government could actively assist them in times of need...

...began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender... the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act...declared a War on Poverty and formed a series of Great Society programs, including the creation of Medicare

Yet despite the above (from http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history... ) we have seen the steady erosion and dismantling of every principle and program that compose the core reasons that people vote for Democrats. Particularly on Class, Race, and Corporate power issues, the Democrats have been complicit in the ever-widening income and racial divide and ever-greater wealth and power of Corporations.

And for virtually every one of the Bills that have dismantled those Core policies, there were Democrats voting "Aye."

So again and again we are reminded that we should vote for some Corporate enabling Democrat because s/he has "a 90% approval rating" from Environmental groups, say, or Women's Rights groups. Yet the environment continues to degrade, Women's Rights continue to be threatened and eroded.

So where does this leave those of us who work and vote for Democrats?

Clean, publicly funded elections would be a start. We havn't exactly seen the Democrats charging the barricades on that one either.

[leveymg]

5. Third parties work in Parliamentary systems. Ideally there should be at

least 6 parties covering the full spectrum of extreme left to right. That requires coalition governments which avoid this situation where minority Right-wing parties take all.

[Selatius]

8. Let me guess the positions of these parties:

Far left
Left
Center-left
Center-right
Right
Far right

In Europe, if you're a leftist of some kind, you have a broad choice. Christian Democrats, Greens, Social Democrats, Labor, Socialist, even the occasional Communist Party, and more are offered. Then you have leftist groups that don't pursue political office such as libertarian socialists who see it as a way of life more than an issue of poltical beliefs, but these are more akin to movements than parties.

[leveymg]

10. Precisely. We have wide choice in toothpaste, but an incredibly narrow

political party structure.

No wonder we've come to a crisis in America.

[sabbat hunter]

26. parliamentary systems far from perfect

just look at israel where often the fringe right wing control the necessary votes to form a government. more parties does not = better.

look at how many governments Italy has had since the end of WW 2. most of the time its government was run by narrow coalition majorites that fell apart easily causing lots of problems.

[bvar22]

13. IRV (Instant Run Off Voting)...

...would solve the problem.

Would you vote for the Peace Party if you could vote for the Democrats as your 2nd choice?

[Selatius]

14. Yes, but you simply can't escape Duverger's Law in our system

As long as you have a form of representation based on single-seat districts, the law states you will more likely then not end up with only two "viable" political parties. You need proportional representation, and our system is not that, and it won't be barring radical changes to the way we elect politicians to government. IRV is simply a way to ensure whoever wins the seat is acceptable to the majority of the voters, not just to the plurality of the voters, but it doesn't affect the fact that we still have single-seat district representation.

I want to escape Duverger's Law altogether, not mitigate it. I don't want a two-party system where one party could literally gain control over all three branches of government. I don't care if it's in the hands of a Democrat or a Republican. I don't trust political parties enough to think any one party alone deserves to control all branches of government. I want a system where a political party rarely wins a majority of the vote on its own; this forces an agenda setting tone more based on consensus-building as opposed to simple majoritarian rule.

[sabbat hunter]

28. parlimentary governments often unstable

look at italy and israel.

england is a rarity with parlimentary form of government with just three parties having representation.

often the vote is splintered causing narrow coalitions with either the far right or far left wing politically, which means you have to give up something big in order to get those fringe parties in and form a government.

[Selatius]

32. Proportional representation does not necessarily equal instabiliy.

If done properly, you could come out with relative stability like Switzerland or Germany, as opposed to Israel or Italy.

[Adelante]

15. Mexico is not 60% left, not even close

The left did not get 58% of the vote. PRI voters, those who remain, are the most conservative, those party loyalists who voted for Madrazo. Madrazo's votes do not necessarily translate to votes for AMLO. The left of PRI voters have gone over to PRD already and the right of PRI voters have gone to PAN already. The country is split down the middle as the election reflects. The class structure has also altered quite a bit in the past decade with an expanded middle class anxious to hold onto their new found prosperity - this is the constituency that once would have favored PRD, but now leans PAN. The only agreement may be that if Fox would have been able to run for a second term, he might have gotten 60% of the vote, if his approval ratings are an indication. Obviously, Vicente Fox is no leftist. Your basic presumption is strained, papau. It's a mistake to look at the PRI in their now ancient incarnation on the left. It's a new ballgame for Mexico. I would more easily predict a PAN/PRI coalition than a PRD/PRI coalition.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Correct

The initial post is flawed beyond repair on this point. No question about it.

[slackmaster]

30. I must say this sub-thread hit the nail on the head

Well done, and thank you!

:toast:

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. If you truly believe the PRI is lefty I have a bridge to sell you

a huge bridge, with sea front property in NEVADA

Is it left of the Democratic Party? Anything is left of the US Polticial system, but in Mexican Politics, they are considered center to center right and mostly MODERATE

[Adelante]

22. I feel like I've stepped into another universe at DU this week

There is so much wishful thinking at play and so little attempt at understanding :crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Agreed

Hell I grew up down there, and I know that Lopez Obrador is not a lefty either... he is left of center (for Mexico, which makes him very much a lefty here) but a moderate nonetheless.

It seems that if people think somebody is a lefty they can do no wrong either... and this election in Mexico, people LIVING in mexico wished at times for NONE OF THE ABOVE because of all the problems... but people are so full of it in some ways... and no Lopez Obrador is NOT a good administrator, and Caldoron is quite corrupt... NONE OF THE ABVOVE

[rinsd]

25. "NONE of the ABOVE"...where's Monty Brewster when you need him?

[Adelante]

29. Out of 100 million Mexicans 300,000 show up in the Zocalo

And "the people" have spoken :D

[BigYawn]

24. You're right! Clinton beat Bush I because Perrot was taking away votes

from Bush I more than he wzas from Clinton.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. 15-25% of voting eligible voters do it already.

:shrug:

[Spazito]

31. Exactly! Only about 25% of the US eligible voters are deciding who is

to be the Pres.

In the 2004 election, 122,267,553 citizens cast votes, of that number 50.77% (supposedly) voted for bush while 48.31% voted for Kerry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004

Voter turnout data:

2004 51.70%

2000 47.30%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election#Voter_turnout