To provide a concrete example, this seems to suggest that a person who favours the Republicans over the Democrats and expects the Republicans to do well in the midterms should vote for a Libertarian, thereby making the Republicans more dependent on the Tea Party. This is counterintuitive, to say the least.
Is it? Again, I haven’t done the math, but look at the behavior of minor parties in parliamentary systems. They typically demand a price for their support. If the Republican will get your vote regardless why should they care about you?
I agree that voting for a third party which better represents your ideals can make the closer main party move in that direction. The problem is that this strategy makes the main party more dependent upon its other supporters, which can lead to identity politics and legislative gridlock. If there were no Libertarian party, for example, libertarian candidates would have stood as Republicans, thereby shifting internal debate towards libertarianism.
Another effect of voting for a third party is that it affects the electoral strategy of politically distant main parties. If a main party is beaten by a large enough margin it is likely to try to reinvent itself, or at least to replace key figures. If a large third party takes a share of the votes, especially of those disillusioned with main parties, it may have significant effects on long-term strategies.
The problem is that this strategy makes the main party more dependent upon its other supporters, which can lead to identity politics and legislative gridlock.
Legislative gridlock is better than bad laws being passed.
Really? By whose definition of “bad laws”? There are an awful lot of laws that I don’t like (for exaple, ones mandating death for homosexual sex) but that doesn’t mean I’d like to screw up the governance of an entire country by not allowing any bills whatsoever to pass until a reform bill passed. That’s a pretty good way to get a civil war. Look, for example, at Thailand, which is close to separating into two states because the parties are so opposed. Add two years of legislative gridlock and they’d hate each other even more; I am reasonably confident that gridlock in Thailand would lead to mass civil unrest and a potential secession of the northeast, which might well be violent.
but that doesn’t mean I’d like to screw up the governance of an entire country by not allowing any bills whatsoever to pass until a reform bill passed.
I disagree with the premise that countries need a constant supply of new laws to function.
That’s a pretty good way to get a civil war. Look, for example, at Thailand, which is close to separating into two states because the parties are so opposed. Add two years of legislative gridlock and they’d hate each other even more; I am reasonably confident that gridlock in Thailand would lead to mass civil unrest and a potential secession of the northeast, which might well be violent.
The problem in Thailand is not gridlock itself, it’s that different factions have very different ideas about what the laws should be.
I disagree with the premise that countries need a constant supply of new laws to function.
In many countries, the budget or appropriations bills must be passed as a new law every year for things to keep moving. In the US, not having appropriations for even a month was considered unpleasant, and it was getting increasingly so as the effects percolated through the various layers of buffering between the US Treasury and actual paychecks.
Traditionally, in a parliamentary system, if the budget fails, that’s a vote of no confidence and requires new elections—things can’t just keep going.
Abstracting, it seems like constitutions are deliberately designed so that the government can’t go on autopilot—if it were possible for the country to run without new legislation for years, that would weaken the legislature compared to the executive, and it’s widely believed that unchecked executive power is dangerous to liberty.
Is it? Again, I haven’t done the math, but look at the behavior of minor parties in parliamentary systems. They typically demand a price for their support. If the Republican will get your vote regardless why should they care about you?
I agree that voting for a third party which better represents your ideals can make the closer main party move in that direction. The problem is that this strategy makes the main party more dependent upon its other supporters, which can lead to identity politics and legislative gridlock. If there were no Libertarian party, for example, libertarian candidates would have stood as Republicans, thereby shifting internal debate towards libertarianism.
Another effect of voting for a third party is that it affects the electoral strategy of politically distant main parties. If a main party is beaten by a large enough margin it is likely to try to reinvent itself, or at least to replace key figures. If a large third party takes a share of the votes, especially of those disillusioned with main parties, it may have significant effects on long-term strategies.
Legislative gridlock is better than bad laws being passed.
Really? By whose definition of “bad laws”? There are an awful lot of laws that I don’t like (for exaple, ones mandating death for homosexual sex) but that doesn’t mean I’d like to screw up the governance of an entire country by not allowing any bills whatsoever to pass until a reform bill passed. That’s a pretty good way to get a civil war. Look, for example, at Thailand, which is close to separating into two states because the parties are so opposed. Add two years of legislative gridlock and they’d hate each other even more; I am reasonably confident that gridlock in Thailand would lead to mass civil unrest and a potential secession of the northeast, which might well be violent.
I disagree with the premise that countries need a constant supply of new laws to function.
The problem in Thailand is not gridlock itself, it’s that different factions have very different ideas about what the laws should be.
In many countries, the budget or appropriations bills must be passed as a new law every year for things to keep moving. In the US, not having appropriations for even a month was considered unpleasant, and it was getting increasingly so as the effects percolated through the various layers of buffering between the US Treasury and actual paychecks.
Traditionally, in a parliamentary system, if the budget fails, that’s a vote of no confidence and requires new elections—things can’t just keep going.
Abstracting, it seems like constitutions are deliberately designed so that the government can’t go on autopilot—if it were possible for the country to run without new legislation for years, that would weaken the legislature compared to the executive, and it’s widely believed that unchecked executive power is dangerous to liberty.