Prof Tim Sherratt, Poltcl Stdies, Gordon College: Iraq & USA

Gordon College's professor of political studies, Dr Timothy Sherratt, has published a most engaging analysis of the Iraq elections around the central fact that it was not based on geographic districts or "ridings" as they're called in Canada and UK. Rather, using the device of Proportional Representation on a geogrpahically-universal base as far as the entire territory of the Iraqi state is concerned, Iraq created the possiblity of the expression of a far-more differentiated spread of opinion and representation of minorities sufficiently large enuff to form a party and alert possible andherents/voters.

I agree with this view in general, and in the case of Iraq at the moment, in particular.

But I do not think it prudent to promote PropRep in the abstract as tho it were the pure norm of political representation in would-be democratic societies. Take the case of France, which has had a long history of PropRep (not for its office of President, where run-off votes narrow the final choice down to two, if no candidate receives a majority vote earlier in the race). In its Parliamentary elections, France is notorious for its proliferation of Communist, Socialist, and other Leftwing parties - which together hold a majority of voters, if only they could in, say, the Presidential vote forget party affiliations in favour of one major Leftwinger of some sort. They can't and they didn't, and they brawt Jacques Chirac to power, who in this last round was running only because at the time the French prosecutors wwere highly active against corruption and had their guns drawn on him with handcuffs rattling. as Christopher Hitchens a Socialist analyst of Prench Leftwing decadent politics. Chirac's only out was to run for President again, giving him immunity for past cardinals and peccadilloes. But Jacques had a problem; politically, he was/is a neo-Gaullist and they are outnumbered by representatives of the Left in parliament and in national elections, where they lose as mentioned because they practice internicine party politics as only the French Left can.

But Jacques was saved in the last round, despite the failure of the natural victors of the Left (again because of their multip-party internicine warfare). The earlier round had brawt forward the neo-Gaullists' candidate Chirac as having the single largest bloc of votes, but the second largest was that of LePen the racialist nationalist whose party's gains astounded everyone and put the whole election process into crisis. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh party's with the largest cuts of votes, which if they were combined, would have outdone not only LePen, but also Chirac, and would have prevented
the need for any run-off vote at all. So, the Communist, Socialist, and Leftwing voters had to stop LePen's possible win by turning out in sufficient numbers to give Jacques Chirac is majority vote and re-election.

The problem is not differentiation of parties into a multiplicity as in the Netherlands and Iraq at the moment.

The problem is political culture.

Who do you think would benefit in the United States of America were there to be an adoption of PropRep at the natoinal level, and a run-off system for the Presidency and Vice Presidency until there was a clear majority for candidates for both these offices? Would a PropRep vote in the USA produce a French or a Dutch or an Iraqi kind of result?

To the extent that in the USA, there would be at least two black parties and two black candidates for President every round (and Condoleeza Rice would not be one of them, but more likely Barak Osama would be facing off against Jesse jackson), there would be at least two and probably three Hispanic parties (regarding whose candidates even I would not yet be willing to speculate, but a Mexican-based party, a Puerto-Rican, and a Cuban would each emerge).

Aside from ethinically-based parties where value-debates would be internally intense for all, there would also be parties of political principle on broader themes like Socialism, non-Socialist General Leftism (Gays would try to set up a major camp here but homos like me would look elsewhere for political affinity). Nader would run for any party that would have him, whether he can retain control over his current bailiwick, the Reform Party, or not. The existing right of right parties like the Libertarians and the Constitutionals would never merge, and aggregate sufficient diehards that they would both want to be on the ballot for President (with run-offs, before which they would attempt to do their horse-tradiing) and Congress (where they would hope to get some seats each.

And what of the vaunted "evangelical vote'? Various TV evangelists would attempt to create their own parties and run, if not themselves, then certain surrogates sufficiently identified with power-brokers behind them; the various shows would try to get as large a slice of the evangelical voter-pie as possible. There may also be real politicla leadership arising out of the Senate and the House who would form an Evangelical Party of some weight, one that would adopt certain national policies such as "a consistent ethic of life," a rather stringently anti-homo stance much harsher than a Traditional Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which I don't feel is harsh at all, but along with that would come the real negative shit from the political-Evangelical rightwing - because, if a national party of Evangelicals with real political leadership instead of fawning acolytes of TV evangelists were to campaign, it would have to seek that negativist moralistic fundmentalist rightwing, because it does have votes. However, such a party would never be able to please all Evvies and Fundies, so it would have to try to whilttle away a the mass in order to gain however many it could. Each vote could add up to yet another seat in the House or Senate.

I don't think Prof Sherratt and CPJ which publishes Capital Commentary online and by PDF, have as yet done their homework on what consequences are more likely to follow in the USA than in the Netherlands, Canada, and Iraqi at present. I think the French scenario would be more structurally similiar here than there, but that probably the rightwing parties added together would have the majority, and at the same time fall victim to the situaiton of the leftwing parties in France. Of couse, here we could see a strong resurgence of various racisms (Black, Hispanic, and White, as well as a more voracious political Evangelicalism, to say nothing of a Catholic Peoples' Party or two).

Sherratt and CPJ USA should go back to the drawing boards.
Link