Propagation: Seeds & scions (5)

5 ideas sprouting »

1. Dilma Rousseff is supported by the PT, PMDB, PCdoB, PDT, PRB, PR, PSB, PSC, PTC, and PTN. In the last Congress, those nine parties held 297 of the 513 seats.

   The PT’s “niche appeal” as a “cohesive leftist party” varies from one state to another. For example, in the last congressional vote, the PSB (Brazilian Socialist Party) was the largest left party in Maranhao, Rio Grande do Norte, Tocantins and Paraíba. The PDT (Democratic Labour Party) was the largest left party in Espirito Santo. Meanwhile, Lula’s coalition depends on the PMDB (Democratic Movement, centre-left) which was the largest party in Goiás, Santa Catarina, Distrito Federal, Tocantins, and Amapa, and the largest of Rousseff’s alliance in Bahia and Ceara. And I’ve likely skipped over several other states.

   Brazilian parties form different electoral alliances in different states, and even for different offices in the same state, that are hard to follow from a distance (and perhaps hard to follow even up close?)

   Seed planted by Wilf Day — 03 October 2010 @ 08:11

2. Okay, everyone, drinking glasses at the ready…

   “Indeed, because of Brazil’s complex system of proportional representation, the party was able to use Tiririca’s votes to gain three more seats in Congress…”

   - Lilia M Schwarcz, “Politically Incorrect: Brazil’s Clown-Elect,” The New Yorker (14 October 2010), http://tinyurl.com/26cvfhm.

   (The irony is that I can get the idea of a list-PR system like Brazil’s – or, a fortiori, like Israel’s – across to first-year politics/ law students in about 2 or 3 minutes. Explaining how the USA’s primaries work, though… now THAT’s a “complex system”).

   Seed planted by Tom Round — 18 October 2010 @ 08:48

3. Sorry, the above went in the wrong Brazil thread.

   But on the topic of electoral separation of purpose, see Alex Massie’s interesting comment on the US mid-terms:

   ‘… in a sense you can argue that the Republican victory this November will be an unearned triumph. But so, in many ways, were the Democratic Congressional gains in 2006 and (to some extent) 2008. This is an unusual feature of American politics: you don’t have to be good or even plausible to do well.

   In most countries elections are a two-question examination in which voters decide if a) the government has failed and b) has the opposition done enough to deserve to be in power. You need two Yes answers to change the government.

   The nature of the mid-term elections mean it’s different in the United States. There, voters conclude that the party sitting in the White House (and, sometimes, Congress) stinks and it doesn’t matter that the other party stinks just as much. Regardless of who controls government, the opposition can learn nothing and do nothing and still do well.

   With the single exception (in recent times) of the 9/11 2002 mid-terms the party governing the White House has been defeated (that is, lost seats) in the mid-terms. The scale of these defeats varies but the fact they can be predicted with near-certainty means there’s little incentive for Congressional leaders to rethink their views or positions on, really, any issue. Why bother when the nature of the political cycle means you’ll probably pick-up seats anyway?

   One of the problems with America’s two-party system (which is increasingly parliamentary in the way it operates) is that there’s no third party for protest votes. By default a protest vote – whether active or stay-at-home passive – can only benefit the other mob who, generally speaking, are little if any more appetising than the crew against whom you feel like protesting.

   That makes for unhappy voters and politicians who don’t often need to have a real think about what they’re offering or trying to do. The difference in the way our respective systems are organised ensures that comparisons are only of limited use; nevertheless America’s two party system and the way it operates creates few incentives for internally-driven reform. Congress doesn’t produce a Thatcher or a Blair or a Cameron type[*] of figure who will change their party to reflect changing situations or changed public views. There’s little sense of renewal in Washington, little sense that the opposition is really doing the hard work of preparing for power.

   And so, assisted by the way districts are drawn and by the advantages of incumbency, off-year elections in particular are a matter of enthusing the base. The most vulnerable members are usually, though obviously not exclusively, on the moderate wings of their party while the leadership, again mainly but not exclusively, reflect an established orthodoxy that satisfies few voters and excites even fewer. The current Congress may have achieved quite a lot (for good or ill) but it’s hardly been a fresh platform; similarly the GOP’s rhetoric is by and large at least 15 years old and just as stale…

   [*] This is one reason why Congress is such a rotten platform for the presidency. The Reagan movement wasn’t built in DC and nor, you can argue, were the New Democrats.’

   - Alex Massie, “Were the Conservative Reformers Wrong? (American Edition)”, The Spectator (Wednesday 6 October 2010)

   Seed planted by Tom Round — 18 October 2010 @ 11:46

4. The Massie article is a pretty good summary of what is wrong with the American system.

   One technical correction, the presidential party also gained seats in the 1998 midterm election. But the general point is right.

   One thing I’ve found striking about Congress is that there are little in the way of a mechanism for the Congressional parties to generate their own policies. The closest we’ve seen was the 1994 Republican agenda. Instead policy is either made in the White House, or is something thrown together as a reaction to what is coming out of the White House.

   Also, the two party system and the presidential system have a tendency to reinforce each other. Since the directly elected executive is what matters, third parties don’t get taken seriously because you have to be large enough as a party to capture the presidency or governorship, and there is only room for two parties of sufficient size.

   To move this post back towards the topic, Brazil combines a presidential system with proportional representation for the legislature. That creates its own problems, and I’m not sure whether proportional representation or single member districts are more likely to deliver better outcomes if the presidential system is a given. At least Brazil uses direct election plus runoff to chose its presidents.

   Seed planted by Ed — 18 October 2010 @ 15:09

5. The Green Party candidate, Marina Silva, will remain “neutral” in the runoff. She says, “We should place ourselves in a position as moderators.”

   Fine, but the problem is that the “we” implies a strong party, which as Wilf noted in a comment in the legislative-elections thread, she lacks.

   Thanks to Brazil’s high electoral separation of purpose, having a strong presidential candidate–she won 19%–does not guarantee having a strong presence in collective bodies like the legislature.

   Seed planted by MSS — 18 October 2010 @ 20:43

RSS feed for comments on this post.

TrackBacks

To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=4337
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)

Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.

Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.

Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!

Seedbed

The soil is ready for planting: