Imagineering A Different Electoral Process

Political systems are like salami. We see the outside but we do not really know what’s inside. We are told that 2/3 is ground meat, 1/3 ground fat, lots of salt, and spices of choice. Aging the salami melds the flavors and cures it. Different countries have their own recipes and preferences ranging from plain to spicy. 

I would like to use this analogy to explore some of the ingredients and flavors hoping to provide some useful illustrations.

The Ingredients

Most of all, when slicing the salami, you will find an abundance of ideological meat. Tradition resembles the fat. And, in a less transparent way, the spices are made up by the politicians’ personalities, their ethnic background, their religious persuasion or lack thereof, their past peccadillos, and their foibles. The press enjoys delving-in on the spicy side to feed its hunger for ratings.

Impediments to Compromise

Ideology is at the top of the list. By and large, it is difficult to give-in to someone with a different viewpoint. The exaggerated vitriol between opposing ideologies illustrates this point. Ideology from the fringe is the archetype. From the extreme left, anyone who disagrees is an idiot, an ignoramus, and a greedy and heartless sob. From the extreme right, anyone who does not agree is a bleeding heart pinko, someone lacking in patriotism, and a self-indulgent slob. Demonizing the adversary makes constructive dialogue difficult, if not impossible.

Behind ideology is tradition. It has many positives aspects, but it also contains biases, stereotypes, resentments, and nightmares accumulated over time. Distrust, belittling, hard-hitting humor, and ridicule of others’ tradition are used to self-differentiate. It is almost like telling the other: "You do not understand and never will our reason." Thus, they paint the other as inconsiderate or unable to empathize with one’s challenges and accumulated resentments.

Statistics provide many spices, by slicing the electorate's identity and emphasizing race or ethnic origin, gender, age, economic and social status, religion, place of birth, geography, and son on. Slicing and dicing is a tool for pigeonholing people into homogeneous clusters to whom politicians can pander more effectively. If you are not a member of a specific slice, there is no way that one can truly understand the aspirations, grievances, or concerns of someone else’s slice.

Another major spice -- Personality -- is often key to electoral success. In today’s wide media coverage, appearance, oratory skills, interpersonal style, and other personal characteristics distinguish winners from wannabes.

It seems that substance matters less. Voters will often ignore prior experience and preparation if the politicians look good on TV or if they like the messengers' slogans.The enthusiasm politicians generate can be  key to a large turnout.

Adding to the Conundrum

The two party system, in my view, contributes to our confusion. Asking people to choose between just two alternatives is tough. Americans at present identify three-ways: Democrats (30%), Republicans (23%), and Independent (47%). The later is often referred to as the silent majority. It is this group that ultimately decides who gets elected. Often the choice is based on flimsy data or emotional reaction.

Adapting A Modified European Model

It would be much better if we had at least four choices:

(1) Left,

(2) Left-Right,

(3) Right-Left, and

(4) Right.

Progressives could align themselves with Left, Conservatives with Right, and Independents could choose between Left-Right (Democrat) or Right-Left (Republican) based on their philosophical preference.

In my view, this would make it much easier for the voters to distinguish more clearly the political choices.

Forcing the electorate to choose from just two options oversimplifies the importance of certain issues in favor of more predictability. Vocal extremes or fringes on both sides of the political spectrum make it hard to reach needed compromises.

Let’s see! Germany has four major parties, Britain has three, France has four, Spain has four, and Italy, not to be outdone, has six major parties.

Thresholds minimums would limit splinter parties from entering Congress should they not garner 5% or more of the vote. One other benefit would be more political diversity.

Complex issues have no ready-to-use, off-the-shelf prepackaged solutions; they require collective wisdom. If no party has more than 50+% in Congress the leading party would need to form a coalition with one or more of the other three parties. This arrangement would structurally facilitate a greater form of collaboration and compromise.

Presidential elections would work as follows: if any of the four candidates does not garner 50+% of the popular vote, the two with the highest votes would face-off one another in a run-off. No need for the Electoral College, a vestige of little or no utility in the 21^st century.

This proposal might sound utopian, but it is not.

Issues?

Sure.  There will be resistance to change by traditionalists and by smaller states because it is not what the founding fathers envisioned or what the Constitution prescribes. Some will see the risk of more gridlock. Others will point out that the US is not parliamentary. I am sure there are some other issues that I might have overlooked.

But, it is fun to imagine.  Your thoughts?