Portland, Oregon, first used its new proportional ranked-choice voting electoral system to elect city council members in November 2024.
A variety of groups endorsed candidates in this nonpartisan election.
Analyses of these groups’ endorsements point to the emergence of four political blocs: national progressivism, pro-business pragmatism, local progressivism, and laborism.
It is not yet clear what style of politics will emerge in future elections. Possibilities include local multi-partism, local bi-partism based on coalition parties, and continued fluidity, including within the blocs themselves.
Portland’s urban politics may prove unstable and feature shifting alliances among these groups in the run-up to subsequent elections.
I have a new essay with John Ketcham, “Reforming Big-City Elections.” In it, we argue that the two-party system makes its own case for party-list-based forms of proportional representation. Our argument differs from the usual one based on Duverger’s law.
Schattschneider (1942: 191) expresses deep skepticism about the ability of “public opinion” to hold government accountable. He goes on to argue for more internally disciplined political parties. Please evaluate this diagnosis and prescription in view of what you have learned this semester. Success does not mean citing everything. Rather, you should cite the readings that are relevant to your argument. Please confine your answer to 750-1,500 words. The usual guidelines apply.
This post’s purpose is to put down thoughts related to a conversation I had last night. One point concerns the defense of parties. Another concerns the nature and explanation of the two-party system.
A poll I ran on Twitter from August 28-9, 2024.Read more…
The space of politics is multidimensional. What we call “left” and “right” are negotiated positions.
Interest groups (broadly understood) do the negotiating. They are assumed to want control of government. They form coalitions to get it.
Every democracy has some coalition structure, even if it does not track party division.
‘Shifting coalitions’ lead to electoral reform: incumbent groups seeking insulation, out-of-power groups seeking realignment, or opposing groups seeking to discipline noncommittal players (a polarizing mode).
Electoral reform is change in any of five electoral-system components: assembly size, district magnitude, ballot type, allocation rules, and rules about nominations.
Two-party politics makes it tempting to cater to factions, not parties, when proposing and designing reforms. Witness the current emphasis on ballot type and nominations (ranked-choice, approval voting, nonpartisan primaries). Witness the unpopularity (outside political science) of allocation rules that presume party grouping (such as party-list proportional representation, including mixed-member).
In the past, reformers promoted single transferable vote (STV) and ranking generally in order to cater to factions, not parties.
In other countries, multiparty politics facilitates use of ranked-choice: giving voters understandable entities to rank, instructing voters on how to rank (vote management), regulating candidate entry (vote management), and generating political will to administer a complex system.
In the United States, ranked-choice reforms tended to last as long as the coalitions that imposed them.
Vote management was imperfect and slow to emerge. It usually involved a bipartisan coalition that sold itself in “good government” terms.
Due to vote management, STV produces winners who usually would be the same under open-list proportional representation (OLPR).
An exception is when the coalition structure shifts, such that some voters do not rank candidates in the way that party (or interest-group) leaders might want. Said voters are part of a coalition structure that is different from the prevailing one.
If the alternative coalition deprives “left” and “right” of control of government, they may join in blaming the electoral system. This can lead to a polarizing repeal episode.
Reasons for abandonment of majoritarian ranked-ballot rules are not yet well-understood. One theme in the literature is ranking truncation. Another is the production of surprise results. These may have reinforced each other: many voters not ranking very many choices, determined candidates capitalizing on this.
The repeal of early ranked-choice systems left in place features that had been needed to pass ranked-choice. These include nonpartisan ballots, numbered-post elections, and single-digit assemblies.
