Unity '08

Blue Girl drew my attention to this article by Joe Rothstein from U.S.Politics regarding the so-called Unity '08 ticket. This movement has received some not insignificant press coverage (WaPo, San Fransisco Chronicle, NYT, and of course it has a MySpace page...) but really, there's nothing to it.

Rothstein's analysis of Unity08's bi-partisan effort is pretty good; he points out a couple of obvious problems with the effort, but he misses the real structural barriers that exist.

Three obvious problems with Unity08's position as expressed by Rothstein:

1) Unity assumes that candidates aren't already moderate. Please. As much as I like to rail against Republicans and DINOs, the front runners during any campaign tend to play to the center. Of course, during primaries they work the wings so they can win the nomination, but the structure of our electoral system favors moderates (or at least, those who are perceived as such). It's hard to imagine how Unity08's platform would be 'more moderate' than that of any of the 6 front runners.

2) It calls for a bi-partisan ticket. No way this will happen with an effective duo. Imagine a Republican or Democrat jumping the party ship and joining with 'the enemy' to form an upstart campaign. Unless they are independently wealthy, they will automatically lose the financial mechanisms which are attached to party affiliation - these candidates lose on significant debate participation, effective political sponsorship, and special interest support (since their chances of working with a partisan Congress to get legislation passed would be limited). Furthermore, one member of this bipartisan ticket is going to have to sit in the passenger seat. Let's assume it's Hagel and Lieberman - whom do you suppose would play second fiddle?

3) Necessarily requires that the Unity ticket defeats the his/her respective party's nominee. I hope that executive enjoys fighting his own party for legislation for the next four years.


These are all pretty obvious. and perhaps there exist some anecdotes which might cover these concerns (doubt it, though). The real problems for Unity 08, however, boil down to the basic structures of our political system.

1) Single-Member-District Plurality Voting (aka. First-Past-The-Post): We vote for representatives based on geological district; we see this on a small scale in the House, a bit larger in the Senate (which, I suppose, is multi-member district representation), and on the largest scale with POTUS. In an effort to maximize a candidate's potential mandate, an incentive exists to maintain a two-party system. Assuming Unity08 wins the election, it certainly wouldn't be more than 35% - this is not much of a mandate for an executive, particularly considering the House and Senate will likely enjoy a majoritarian (or near to it) mandate from the electorate. The Dems and Reps will in no way support this effort, and any candidate who participates in a Unity '08 campaign will be marginalized. This sets up a situation in which the executive would be facing a Congress who a) is already pissed for the Prez and Veep for jumping ship, and b) enjoys a stronger mandate than the other branch.

2) Spatial Positions of the Parties: Our parties are huge, large-tent, catch-all, poorly disciplined (compared to European parties) organizations which tend to win slight majorities. So, the Republicans are guaranteed about 30% of the vote (Neo-Fascists, Neo-Libs, Neo-Cons, self-identified partisans), the Democrats are guaranteed 30% of the vote (Communists, Hippies, socialists, self-identified partisans), and about 40% are up for grabs. Perhaps, you might argue, Unity08 is poised to snatch up that remaining 40%, but that seems unlikely to me. Even amongst those 40% so-called independents, they still have preferences - half of them lean right, the other lean left. I can't see Unity 08 positioning itself in such a way as to court both those who lean-right and lean-left. Most voter-behavior studies indicate that voters pick candidates based on party identification over anything else. Anyone who says "Oh, I don't vote based on party - I look at the issues and make my decision based on the person" is either a) stupid, or b) lying to you (or at least not being completely honest). People use party ID as a way to make informed choices without incurring the information costs associated with candidate selection. When a voter approaches a ballot, and sees Blaine H. (D), Patton W. (R), and Joe K. (I), they know, generally speaking, that Blaine supports increased marginal tax rates, abortion rights, and decreased defense spending, and that Patton fears Jesus, hates other people's genitals, and shits on the poor - they know NOTHING about Joe, and aren't likely to learn about him because it takes time and effort. Now, perhaps all they need to know is that he isn't a member of the status quo, but they really don't know who he is or what he's about. Is Joe an Independent in the same vein as Lieberman? Sanders? Or Ross Perot? A rational voter (and according to one paradigm of political science, all voters are rational) will vote (if s/he votes at all) for the D or the R because the voter is able to discern enough general information to understand what that candidate stands for. A Unity label confers no information, and voters aren't likely to pursue it.

I'm not a huge fan of two-partyism myself - it limits choice and makes reform difficult. However, you can't just up and spontaneously change the party system. If Perot won in 1991, he would have had a miserable 4 years in office and would have accomplished nothing. The Reform Party, Constitutional Party, Dixiecrats, Bull Moose, Masonic, Anti-Masonic etc. were all doomed, even if their Presidential candidates won.

Do real alternatives exist? Sure, but they have their own problems. If one really wants a Unity government, we pretty much need a Parliamentary system with Proportional Representation elections - they foster 3 + party systems and coalition cabinets, and we don't even have to get rid of the Senate (although, the Presidency has to go... no real loss). This, of course, would require significant Constitutional change, and isn't likely to happen short of a serious, paradigm shifting national emergency (World War Z style).