Is it a contradiction that some ideas could be “beyond the mainstream” yet shared by a majority of the public? It may seem so, but political reality is a good deal more complex than that, for at least two reasons.
First, what is “mainstream” in terms of accepted political debate within and in the context of election campaigns for our “representative” institutions may be much narrower than the real range of ideas shared within the electorate. That was the essence of the point I was making yesterday about the narrowness of political debate offered by realistic candidates for the US presidency. And, as I noted, the range of options offered to voters in legislative elections is narrower still, even if most views are in fact represented by “the chance opinions of individual members” in districts where it is “safe” to articulate what the rest of the body politic considers beyond-the-mainstream views (quote from Droop).
The second reason that it may not be contradictory that some views might be from beyond the mainstream of regular discourse and yet held by a majority is that the public is generally not highly ideological. Some ideas that are not well represented by the established political parties may, in fact, be quite popular and practical. The key is getting them aired and then represented in the legislature, thereby broadening the debate and facilitating the adoption of practical solutions that might otherwise be easily dismissed as “fringe.”
The context of this planting is a comment given over at PoliBlog to a previous comment of mine. My comment was essentially a rough draft of yesterday’s planting on From Beyond the Mainstream. The follow-up comment claimed that I was wrong to characterize Tom Tancredo’s views on immigration as beyond the mainstream because, according to the commentator, “Tancredo’s views on illegal immigration are … shared by 75% or so of the country.”
Now, I am no expert on public opinion on immigration, or on immigration policy. And my intention is not to debate with someone who runs a blog called The Lonewacko Blog whether his own or Tancredo’s views are beyond the mainstream. However, I would argue that on this issue, as on many others, our immigration policy would be something more sustainable than the mess it currently is if the legislature were elected with some form of proportional representation.
Under PR, the broader spectrum of views among the electorate on the issue would be represented, and the balance of that representation in congress would shift with shifting public opinion as to which issues are most important and what proposed solutions to them are most resonating with the electorate. Rather than festering because the narrow range of mainstream interests is deadlocked on the issue or prefers not even to open it up for long periods of time, the agenda would be more open and the proposals more diverse.
Personally, I abhor the views of someone like Tancredo. But I would welcome a political party articulating his views having a block of seats in congress that would shift in size depending on the size of the electorate that chose to endorse a hypothetical party led by Tancredo.
No, it is not a contradiction that views on a policy may come from beyond the fringe yet be consonant with a majority of the public: We can’t know where the median is on an issue if voters across the country do not have the opportunity to cast an effective vote for their preference among the widest feasible range of views, including those from beyond the mainstream. On that score, our current system of “representative” institutions fails us badly.
I agree with your argument about PR. As for the “mainstream” opinion about immigration, many polls (anyone interested can do a search for “immigration poll” on my blog for links) show that a majority (perhaps even 2/3 to 3/4 of Americans, depending on the wording of the poll) favor a policy that combines enforcement AND amnesty. Not only does Tancredo not reflect majority opinion, almost no one else in Congress does either.
Seed planted by Greg Weeks — 19 January 2007 @ 11:07
I’m generally in favor of electoral reform, but I’m not sure PR is the panacea you suggest here. Other democratic polities seem to have similarly divisive issues, and also have policies that significantly diverge from majority preferences, despite having PR electoral systems; the current struggles in the Netherlands over the immigration issue in many ways are similar to those in the U.S., with “mainstream” elite opinion also fundamentally out of step with the man/woman on the street (the only serious Dutch party that is hardline on immigration is the VVD, despite mass opinion leaning more toward a hardline stance on the issue).
In other words, there is a common mass-elite disconnect in political culture, particularly on postmaterialist issues (of which I think immigration is fairly considerd to be one), that doesn’t seem to be “fixed” by PR. On law-and-justice issues, PR systems seem to lead to even more of a disconnect than majoritarian ones; witness the post-1997 British reforms to the judicial system, which reduced protections for the criminally accused in response to increasing popular outrage toward “coddling” criminals, and the retention/expansion of the death penalty in the U.S. Your colleague Arend Lijphart may consider these outcomes of majoritarianism* less “kind and gentle,” but they do seem more congruent with mass preferences in these cases.
Of course, in the Netherlands I’m a bit perplexed by the traditionally liberal (economically and at least mildly socially) VVD being the most illiberal on immigration, but maybe that’s a party system quirk. Then again, given the Tancredo wing’s frequent aping of libertarian rhetoric in other policy areas maybe the marriage between these policies is more natural than I’d normally think.
* Granted Lijphart flip-flops on how majoritarian the U.S. system really is, but for the purposes of his conclusions at the ends of Patterns of Democracy he seems to lump it into the majoritarian category.
(This may turn out to be a drive-by comment since I have an interview next week. If so, my apologies in advance.)
Seed planted by Chris Lawrence — 19 January 2007 @ 11:15
Chris, point well taken on the “disconnect” and the problem of divisive issues, but in general, your point that “Other democratic polities … have policies that significantly diverge from majority preferences, despite having PR” is not borne out by research (Huber and Powell, among others).
Regarding the Netherlands, the ability of a party like the List Pym Fortuyn to emerge from out of nowhere (and from well beyond the mainstream!) to articulate the public concern with immigration is unlike anything that happens in any system with majoritarian elections. We’ll never know the impact–good or bad–that he might have had if not for his assassination.
And, absolutely, the USA does not fit well into Lijphart’s typology. But that would be a topic for another thread.
“Drive by” or not, thanks, Chris, for the comment. I always can count on one of my PR posts to draw you over!
I do not argue that PR is a panacea–only that it opens up the political debate to broader views, and that even some of the newly represented “fringe” views can be beneficial to the national debate.
Good luck on your interviews!
Seed planted by MSS — 19 January 2007 @ 11:22
Greg pretty much hit my main point: that really the notion that Tancredo is “mainstream” is contradicted by any serious consideration of the opinion data.
I have wanted to get to that and your PR posts, but have not yet done so. Perhaps this weekend over at PoliBlog!
Seed planted by Steven Taylor — 19 January 2007 @ 14:40
Right, but don’t miss Greg’s additional point that hardly anyone in Congress is reflecting the majority preference for a synthesis of ideas from various sides of the debate.
If you had no majority party, and a representation of various “beyond the mainstream” views that the “mainstream” parties had to compete with, there would be a higher probability of a compromise solution that was near the median’s preference for, well, a synthesis.
And my further point was that the issue would have been addressed earlier, rather than allowed to fester, if public sentiment on the issue had resulted in a noticeable increase in support for a party like the Constitutionalists.
Seed planted by MSS — 19 January 2007 @ 15:49
Arnold and the post-partisan blues
As noted in the LA Times, a study by Rhodes Cook based on data from 27 US states shows only 75% of voters registered with one of the two mainstream parties (down from82% in 1994). That means a quarter of the electorate in this sample of states–not all states register voters by party–is now independent or other party. Most independents are moderate, non-ideological voters disgusted with the polarization of the main parties on many issues. Many “other” party registrants hold views that are from beyond the mainstream, or even of fringe ideologies, yet–as I noted in the previous two plantings on these topics–even these parties and their voters may have practical solutions for honestly and wisely governing their country or state that would be valuable contributions to the debate.
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 19 January 2007 @ 15:50
There are long lists of polls here:
http://www.illegalaliens.us/polls.htm
numbersusa.com/interests/publicop.html
And, Zogby found only 2 percent who thought immigration was too low:
cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html
Certainly, a long list at, say, the AILA’s site would probably be different. However, if you search at my site you’ll find plenty of biased polls that take advantage of linguistics or ignorance about the effects of amnesties or that offer false or incomplete choices.
If everything involved in this issue were spelled out, you’d probably get a huge majority favoring no illegal immigration and reduced legal immigration.
Almost all of the polls that claim to show people favoring amnesty either lie by asking about “guest” workers, when everyone realizes that our “guests” won’t leave. And, they mislead by not disclosing everything involved in something like the Senate bill, such as endless chain migration. And, they don’t mention that an amnesty would send a huge message to prospective illegal aliens.
And, no matter what the public polls show, the internal polls led to things like Dems being tough on the border, soft-soaping amnesty, and trying to finesse amnesty through.
Seed planted by IllegalImmigrationIntro — 19 January 2007 @ 16:10