Skip to content

Author: Santucci

Our contribution to the APSA/Protect Democracy report on parties

Matthew Shugart has a summary of our contribution, which asks how proportional representation might be made to work for U.S. national elections. Michael Latner is the other co-author. It was an honor to contribute to the essay and to the larger collection, which is excellent.

Our piece also tries to take representation seriously. Those thoughts relate to our ongoing project on U.S. descriptive representation in comparative perspective.

Thoughts on ballpoint pens

I recently switched to (mostly) paper-based grading in one of my courses. This has me thinking about pens.

Above (top to bottom) are a: Fisher Space Pen (USA, ca. 2017, medium, black); Parker Jotter (USA, ca. 1999, medium, blue); and Zebra F-301 (Indonesia, ca. 2018, fine, blue). I will comment on each.

The Parker ties with the Zebra for balance, but the Parker is heavier. Its click is also more satisfying. The Space Pen not balanced, but its click has interesting bounce.

I enjoyed grading with the Parker very much. Its medium point is between the Zebra’s fine and Space Pen’s medium. This was good for writing on the papers. But it also seems to do best on copy paper — and does not perform like Space Pen in non-ideal weather (for obvious reasons).

The Parker also clipped nicely to my jeans — kind of like a tactical pocketknife. Zebra also can do this, but it doesn’t have the heft to stay put. It also has a tendency to get clicked open. Fisher will stay clipped to anything, but it is hard to clip because that clip has little give.

For the shirt pocket, I like Zebra most. It’s so light! Fisher is not fun in the pocket because it’s hard to clip. Parker also is good in the shirt.

I also used a Fisher bullet format for several years (USA, ca. 1993, medium, black). It is a great pen to keep in a coat or pants pocket. It just sits there mostly unnoticed and has a cap that seals well.

Overall, the Zebra is a lightweight, inexpensive, and enjoyable pen. I like it for flying.

The Parker is best for grading. The Zebra probably is next. The Parker will remain my go-to. I will stick to my plan for the Fisher, which is “summer pen.”

What is an elite?

It is common in political science to distinguish “elites” from “masses.” Elites are more polarized than masses, for example. We see this when comparing Congress to the public or activists to non-activists. But what is an elite?

I think it is useful to think of them as the folks who do the bargaining. It probably also matters that an elite “commands” some following. This doesn’t mean that they push people around. It just means that what elites say influence our vote choices — or the behavior of other elites elsewhere in the political system.

Looking at the matter in this way lets us see that democracy is a chain of nested coalitions. (Credit for that phrase goes to Hans Noel, who once used it in passing.) Elites might broker deals locally, then statewide, and then nationally. Some of those deals might concern which elites to send up to the next level.

This perspective also lets us add realism to some popular abstractions. I am thinking of social choice, Arrovian cycles, and Condorcet issues. Bargaining gets us to coalitions and therefore majority rule.

Bargaining does sometimes break down. Or the elites cut a deal we don’t like. The good news is that it’s easy for many to become elites (but see).

Good summary of my argument, plus a thought on lists

Ned Foley has an excellent summary of my technical argument about STV repeals.

I wonder if the fractional-transfer approach would mitigate vote leakage.

The problem is that voters don’t understand it, which is what spurred the original post.

I argue in the book that there are three ways to deal with this: have a multiparty system (that can dictate rankings and/or in which it is incentive-compliant for a majority to retain the system), use list-based allocation (possibly within STV), or somehow maintain a majority that can limit its own nominations.

My hunch is that similar issues (minus ranking and limiting endorsements) also might apply to D’Hondt. Thoughts?

The “disenfranchised independent” argument

The Fulcrum has a piece on “opening” New York State primaries. It makes a familiar argument:

Primary elections are crucial to our electoral outcomes because they determine which representatives have a better standing in the general election.

There is nothing stopping independent voters from running a candidate in a general election — except maybe their inability to agree on that candidate.

And getting people to agree on one candidate (or technically a number that can win) is a major reason why “parties” emerge.

I put “parties” in quotation marks for two reasons. One is that many hear it as an anti-reform cudgel. The other is that “parties” may not track the two-party divide. I am thinking here of quasi-party organizations like Cincinnati’s Charter Committee or the Murkowski organization in Alaska.

Numerous public officials have won office as independents. Names that come to mind include Bloomberg, Lieberman, Ventura, and Weicker. Each of them did so on their own ballot line in a general election.

It’s time to retire the claim that nominating primaries equal disenfranchisement.