Blog Post #1

Lijphart outlines the possible electoral systems as Plurality and Proportional Representation, and the possible governmental structures as Parliamentary and Presidential. Describing the underlying motivation behind choosing a particular electoral system, he links proportional representation with a coalition government as part of a multi-party system (Reilly calls this “centripetal” government), while he suggests plurality creates two-party systems with a dominant one-party cabinet and executive.  Lijphart notes that presidentialism fosters competition for one office that only the largest parties have the means to compete for. This breeds a culture of two-party politics and the marginalization of fringe parties.

            The United States has a pluralistic voting system and a Presidential government. According to the readings from this week, this makes our system far less representative than others around the world. We place our faith in one powerful executive who can singlehandedly override the will of congress, but who must be overridden by 2/3 of the legislative body to be checked. This executive is chosen by an electorate presented with a choice between two individuals.  In our pluralistic society we must choose the candidate who is aligned with more of our own interests than the other. Our expression of preference is limited to supporting the candidate who agrees with us more often.

            Expressed in these institutions are certain values held by the authors of our system. Our pluralistic voting method demonstrates that we aren’t concerned with reflecting our societal preferences in government as a whole; only the majority’s preferences matter.  Our Presidential system speaks to our desire to have an executive who can act quickly and decisively to solve crises in a way that a representative legislative body cannot. As we are witnessing with the financial crisis however, such action is limited to specific areas such as defense and disaster relief.  This would suggest that as a public we value decisive, unilateral response over the proportionality of our representation in government.  Both of these institutions give rise to the two-party system. Pluralistic elections necessitate a clear definitive choice and Presidential government requires parties that are broad in ideology that encompass enough of the electorate to win a majority of votes. If there is a third party it is bound to overlap with another and neither would be effective.

            I think a lot of the dissatisfaction with the political process in this country stems from the two-party system and the concept of majority rule that accompanies it. Politicians need only conform to 50% + 1 of the population’s demands. Based on the readings, it seems plausible to suggest that the electoral and governmental institutions we have chosen have created this divided climate and by comparison makes the arguments expressed in Ben Reilly’s article about how proportional representation inspires consensus and compromise seem even more valid. There is a lot to be said for our system of government but by limiting our preferences to a choice between two parties we have limited our ability to carry out the will of the country as a whole.