|
Tuesday, 07 November 2006 17:10 |
| | Bill Walz |
In my last column, I bemoaned the fear, loathing and vapidity that now dominate American campaigning and governance, and offered arguments for major campaign finance and media coverage reform.
We are faced with great challenges and opportunities as we enter into the 21st century, but a person would never know it from witnessing the election we have just completed. American politics seems incapable of complex and nuanced thought and debate at a time when solutions to our challenges and problems will take every bit of complex and nuanced governance we are capable of.
The countryës foundersë revolutionary aversion to the British parliamentary system is partially responsible for this. The establishment of our congressional and presidential system has kept American politics locked into two-party dominance from our very beginning. Unlike parliaments that are comprised of many smaller parties clustered around, influencing and in coalition with major parties, the American system, thus far, has been incapable of a more complex political grouping than two mega-parties ruling in isolation.
This
mass bipolar clustering of the body politic leads inevitably to
centrist conventionalism and control of political debate. The creative
and dynamic edges of the society have been effectively marginalized out
of any significant relevance and impact on the process of political
debate and government.
Establishment forces have a near monopoly on
power, with the activity of an alternative party functioning to the
detriment of the major party closest to its ideological leanings.
Dynamic thinking is excluded, and we get, as a result, the vapid,
shallow, status-quo governance that now frustrates any attempts to
meaningfully address pressing problems.
A partial
solution to this conundrum is in a concept called the "instant runoff"
election. A way of adding dynamism to our political system is to allow
for alternative parties to participate constructively in elections by
having their supportersë votes added to the major party closest to
their inclinations rather than causing a subtraction as happens now.
In an instant runoff election, voters get to cast first, second and
third choice votes for each office. If a candidate has over 50 percent
of first choice votes, that individual wins. If not, the second choice
votes of the candidate with the least votes are distributed to the
remaining candidates. This process continues until one candidate has a
majority of the votes. In addition, voters have the opportunity to
express the flavor of their political positions, i.e., Green Democrat,
or pro-choice Republican. The result is elected officials beholden to
the supporters of alternative parties, and needing to attend in their
governing to the attitudes and desires of these voters. Functionally,
coalitions are created, rather than animosities, between varying views
within political wings of American politics.
To put this into
immediate perspective, in the 2000 presidential election, we can assume
that most of the votes for the Green candidate, Ralph Nader, would have
been added to Al Goreës total. The result is that George Bush would
not have won that election, but rather we would have President Al Gore,
beholden to an alliance with a greatly strengthened Green Party. Can
you imagine how different the American political landscape would be
today from that scenario?
In such an
environment, over time, alternative parties could grow, their
philosophies accessing and influencing the American political psyche.
In addition, alternative party candidates would be far more likely to
be elected. Mainstream parties, facing this competition, would be
forced to be much more responsive and accountable than they are now.
This would make instant runoff elections, along with radical campaign
finance and media coverage reform, very important ingredients in
creating a far more dynamic democracy in this country. With these
reforms, we are then much more likely to have the responsive, complex
and nuanced governance necessary to tackle the daunting challenges
facing us.
ï
Bill Walz is an
adjunct faculty member at UNC Asheville and a private practice teacher
of mindfulness, personal growth and consciousness. Contact at
bill.walz-at-worldnet.att.net or (828) 258-3241.
|
