Open Left

Candor and coalitions (4.00 / 1)

If you had enough parties, but not too many, you might still get Italy, or Israel.

That said, I think that one genuine advantage of a multi-party political spectrum, particularly when harnessed to a parliamentary system, is that it encourages politicians to be more candid about where they stand on issues, and why. Even when one of their positions is known to be problematic in the district where they're running, it might still be worth the risk of expressing it if the competition is literally all over the map. In the long run, this sort of thing can't help but be to the good, in that it serves the interest not only of educating the voter, but of engaging him as well.

I also think that it's easier to form coalitions that are more transparent, and therefore more easily judged by the voter. In our two-party system, this is rarely the case. Just who the hell are Arlen Spector or Joe Lieberman, anyway? It's certainly not in their interest for us as voters to know, is it?

We need to build systems in which the incentives are biased toward honesty, and toward more rather than less information, which is a rather more roundabout way of saying the same thing.

My take on Ms. Bordier's fondness for third parties, and failing that, for political coalitions outside the established parties, is that she hopes it will do in a two-party system what comes naturally in a multi-party system. I wonder how she -- and you -- would respond to that interpretation....

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:56:50 AM CDT