CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION: TEN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
BUILDING A MULTIPARTY SYSTEM IN THE U.S.
This study of how to create a multiparty
democracy was intended to be an exhaustive review that left out no proposed
method of reform. The critiques of each
proposed strategy can stand on their own as information to be used by readers
who would like to pursue the reforms they deem most promising. The evidence for some potential strategies,
however, has likely been more convincing than the evidence for others. The following list of proposed strategies
is, therefore, one interpretation of the implications of the evidence
presented. Multiparty system advocates
should, at a minimum, pursue the following strategies for reform:
First, it is best to seek policies at the
local and state level that are in the interest of the major party in
power. Any jurisdiction with a sizable
third party that is influencing the outcome of elections is a potential target
for electoral reform. If the largest
third party primarily hurts the major party in control of the local law-making
body, activists should work for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). If the Greens are threatening to cost the
dominant Democrats several city council seats, for instance, the Democrats have
a strong interest in ensuring that Green voters can voice their second
preference for Democratic candidates.
They may also have an incentive to allow fusion with the hope that they
could convince the Greens to lend their ballot line to the Democrats. If the largest third party primarily helps
the major party in power by taking votes away from their largest competitor,
activists should pursue other reforms that would help the minor party. If the Republicans are in power because the
Greens have cost Democrats several seats, for instance, it is in the interest
of the Republican leaders to remove the barriers to Green success. In these situations, activists should pursue
ballot access reform, public financing for ballot-qualified candidates, and
third-party debate inclusion.
Second,
activists need to convince more opinion leaders in the interest group community
to support electoral reform. A group of
academics, interest group leaders, and former politicians that support
multiparty democracy should issue a report recommending electoral reform and
distribute it to interest groups and legislators nationwide. There are several commissions already
investigating electoral reform for state governments and interest groups. Any research committee considering electoral
reform of any kind should be targeted with a specific proposal to include
reforms such as IRV, fusion, same day voter registration, public financing,
Electoral College reform, ballot access reform, and proportional representation
in their recommendations. Public
interest groups such as the League of Women Voters should be lobbied along with
religious groups, campaign finance reform advocates, and ethnic
organizations. Columnists, editorial
boards, and radio commentators could also be informed via a media outreach
campaign by several interest groups.
Third,
ethnically based third parties should be created to pursue voting rights
cases. The primary area of court
precedent for electoral reforms is in cases reviewing minority voting rights. Redistricting after the 2000 census will set
the stage for a new round of voting rights cases over race-based
gerrymandering. Proportional
representation and ballot access reform could be proposed as remedies to voting
rights cases either in court or in public discussion but they will be more
effective if minority political parties have been created in the region. Particularly in congressional or state
legislative districts that Republicans control, local black-led parties could
produce a large protest vote with the explicit purpose of pursuing
representation through the courts. Even
if the courts were not willing to enact electoral reform, the presence of
proportional representation as a proposed remedy would increase the salience of
the issue in both the media and ethnic social movements. The strategy would be particularly helpful
in states such as Illinois, Florida, Michigan, and California that offer an
initiative process in addition to a history of
redistricting challenges. The
initiative process might be used to propose multimember districts for
congressional representatives in response to a Court-ordered
redistricting.
Fourth, activists should work at the
state level to build third parties when opportunities present themselves and be
sure that independents enact electoral reform when elected. Instead of attempting to build a national
third party in a presidential election, activists should work to develop
regional third parties. Gubernatorial
campaigns in off-year elections have been the most successful. Activists should work to convince current
state officeholders or prominent officials to build third parties. If several legislators in a particular state
could be convinced to form a new party and run candidates for statewide office,
they could build a foundation for congressional representation. Once in office at the state level,
independents and third parties must make electoral reform an important part of
their agenda. Candidates can create an
ideology of reform to gain support or campaign on other issues; either way, implementing
institutional reforms that would ensure the longevity of the new party should
be a legislative priority.
Fifth, activists must convince the
foundation community that electoral reform deserves their support. There is a significant pool of resources
available for legal challenges, interest group organizing, initiatives, and
legislative lobbying available in grant-making accounts dedicated to the
generic idea of improving American democracy.
The financiers have already been convinced to support public financing
and those efforts should be supported.
Obtaining money to challenge ballot access laws through the Courts,
legislatures, and the initiative process should be a priority. Ballot access laws should be challenged by
interest groups as part of a long-term strategy rather than by candidates for
the short-term needs of a campaign.
Financial support is also required for projects to enact IRV at the
local and state level. If activists
focus on the most promising targets and propose workable strategies by viable
interest groups, they are likely to gain support. Several foundation leaders who may have an interest in building
multiparty democracy, such as George Soros, have the money and influence to
pursue a major campaign if convinced that there is a high likelihood of
success.
Sixth, multiparty system activists should
work toward an eventual California statewide initiative to implement IRV. A California initiative can put an issue on
the national political agenda and lead to parallel reforms throughout the
country. If activists are able to pass
the Alaska IRV initiative, they may convince donors and interest group leaders
that a California initiative is possible.
From within California, activists will have to build support for IRV at
the local level. If IRV was implemented
in many local jurisdictions, it could provide successful examples for a
statewide campaign. Activists must also
pursue voting equipment modernization as soon as possible, using a broader
coalition of interests and legislators, so that an eventual IRV initiative
would not require a costly upgrade of the voting system. Building grassroots organizations is
important, but efforts to convince key interest groups, legislators, and the media
may be more important in California. If
California did pass IRV for statewide offices and presidential elector
selection, it would allow several third parties to use the state as their base
of support from which to build.
Seventh, proportional representation
should be advanced via an argument for state control over voting systems. Activists have been attempting to overturn a
1967 law that outlawed the use of multi-member districts for congressional
elections. This approach is the most
likely route to proportional representation in the long term but probably will
not be enacted without a state-level campaign.
In order to gain support from Republicans and additional interest
groups, it might be possible to combine the States' Choice of Voting Systems Act
with a bill to allow states to enact term limits. The arguments made in U.S.
Term Limits v. Thornton, though
distinct legally, are roughly consistent: states should regulate the election
of U.S. representatives. Because there
is even less constitutional basis for the abolition of multi-member districts,
the 1967 law might be overruled if a state actually ever implemented
proportional representation. The
argument for the legislative proposal would certainly be stronger if a state
were to ask to switch to multi-member districts, either as a remedy in a voting
rights case or as an alteration to match state-level elections. Enacting proportional representation in any
state, even for only the state legislature, might therefore be the best
precursor to national proposals for electoral reform. A switch back to cumulative voting in Illinois probably
represents the most plausible initial reform.
Eighth,
activists should use the aftermath of the 2000 election to build an electoral
reform movement. The opportunity to
move away from punch-card voting systems has never been greater. Moves toward voting equipment modernization
all over America will make alternative voting systems more plausible and could
also open the political debate to electoral reform. The Florida fiasco spurred electoral reform activity of all
kinds by many different groups. By
coordinating current efforts and bringing together likeminded reformers at
conventions, protests, and conferences, activists could better exploit the
potential organizing power of the 2000 election. Using the Internet and the organizational networks of independent
groups, the electoral reform movement could consciously spread its ideas
virally, reaching out to key people via communication trees. The movement could also create links to the
anti-globalization movement that organized the convention protests and the
civil rights protest movement that was angered by Bush v. Gore.
Ninth,
prospective independent presidential candidates should be advised to create
long-term strategies for third-party viability. Independent presidential candidates with notoriety or unlimited
finances can play a viable role in bringing about a multiparty system,
particularly if campaigns are pursued in concert with electoral reform and state-level
party-building efforts. Experienced
candidates who might break away from one of the major parties, such as John
McCain, could draw a high level of initial support from the electorate. If a candidacy is pursued without careful
planning, however, it could be another in the long series of one-time
presidential campaigns with no permanent results. If prospective candidates, or those who wish to draft them,
prepare to build a major third party, they could have better results. Prospective candidates need to connect with
current state third parties or other legislators willing to switch parties,
develop an infrastructure for fundraising and ballot access, and study the
mistakes made by independents of the past.
If a campaign by a charismatic leader was forged under the premise that
it was part of a long-term strategy for building a third major party with links
to current elected officials, it could gain support.
Finally, activists should build a varied
movement for electoral reform rather than a new third party. To build a multiparty system, members of
current third parties and their sympathizers will have to come to the
realization that expanding a current third-party organization or starting over
is unlikely to yield positive results given the enormous institutional
constraints. An electoral reform
movement should include everyone willing to participate, including people from
all ideological perspectives. There may
be room for coalitions among third parties, but the electoral reform movement
will need to include members of the major parties and independents as
well. It should not, therefore, attempt
to enact reform through a giant umbrella party or by organizing the left or the
right. Instead, the movement must be
organized as a loose group of activists and interest groups working for the
same changes. In the model of the
Progressive movement, they might eventually combine to support a particular
candidate or party. In order to begin
the reform process, however, they must act as a coordinated movement rather
than a party.