As a student of how electoral-system change happens, I read the Boston Review’s recent essay collection, “We Need More Parties,” with great interest.
It weighs the merits of several responses to a widely held view that the party system is out of step with the preferences of most Americans. These responses include: proceeding with reforms in the vein of nonpartisan ranked-choice (Danielle Allen), embracing ballot fusion instead (Lee Drutman, Tabatha Abu El-Haj), using proportional representation federally to break the major parties into factions that might recombine in ‘better’ ways (Lee Drutman, Grant Tudor & Cerin Lindgrensavage), twinning fusion with community organizing (Deepak Bhargava & Arianna Jiménez, Maurice Mitchell & Doran Schrantz), twinning it with stronger unions (Bob Master), uniting behind one of the major parties (Daniel Schlozman & Sam Rosenfeld), sidestepping parties with reforms to promote citizen deliberation (Josh Lerner), prioritizing policies that might rebuild civil society (Joel Rogers), and having congressional leaders nominate candidates (Ian Shapiro). I will focus on the electoral-system reforms.
And, I argue that reforms most likely to help are least likely to get adopted, those less likely to help are more likely to get adopted, and these conjectures flow from an underappreciated possibility: the doom loop already has broken. Making this argument involves acknowledging that candidates want to win — they are ambitious — and that can be at odds with with a policy-based coalition’s interest in winning control of government….