What would happen, and is it even possible for all of the Democrats to quit their party and join the Republican party? What would be the consequences? Would they have more influence toward their views, taking advantage of the left leaning Republicans?

Some might say that something like this occured in the UK - although in the other direction, politically. Blair is a centre-right politician who joined and transformed the Labour Party. (www.freerepublic.com) The result is a right-leaning Labour Party that its founders wouldn't recognise, but which seems undefeatable at the polls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by edgeview:
What would happen, and is it even possible for all of the Democrats to quit their party and join the Republican party? What would be the consequences? Would they have more influence toward their views, taking advantage of the left leaning Republicans?

---

People would lose faith in the notion that elections give them some control over the government.

As Will Rogers said: "A political party can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but they can't fool all of the people all of the time. That's why we have two."

Alan Moore

Even if there was only one single political party, coalitions will still be formed. Vote trading on legislation will still go on. Debate on the issues will take place. And our elected officials will still have their PAC's & kickbacks. Little will change.

I think a one-party system would be extremely dangerous and damaging to the US. I also think that most Americans would be uncomfortable with such a system.

If the Democratic party dies, in its wake a new party (Green Party? Libertarians? I have no idea) will take its place. Of that I have no doubt. I think that most of us former Democrats don't particularly like the Republicans either - we're looking for something new, and as always, someone will eventually step forward in response to demand.

While I agree with Sarai that most of us would be uncomfortable with a one party system, I'm not too sure we aren't becoming more uncomfortable with the existing system. I wonder whether a parliamentary system might not be a better way to run a democracy.

My criticism of the present system is that the need to maximize the number of votes either of two candidates can receive results in the appeal to the lowest common denominator. As someone observed concerning Hollywood, "There is no highbrow in some of us, but there is some lowbrow in all of us". The objective tends to become platforms that have something for everyone without alienating any major group. The environmentalists,or libertarians, communists, etc., for instance, may not represent a large enough population to interest the electorate, but ought to have a proportional representation in the federal government. Many parliamentary type democracies seem to function quite well wih Socialists, Communists, Libertarians, Gays, etc. sprinkled throughout their legislative bodies. In a population as diverse and as large as the United States, it seems to me that our House of representatives has a rather boring homogenized appearance. I think we cling to a 'melting pot' government even as we have become an increasingly 'tossed salad' of a country.

Proportional representation !Most democracies, methinks, have proportional representation.Certainly in Europe only the UK and the Vatican City did not and then the Vatican City changed , to be like Italy. Even we in the UK have proportional representation for electing candidates to the European Parliament.

So these democracies do not have the US or the UK system of 'first past the post' whereby all the losing parties' and candidates' votes, and their opinions, count for nothing.Our systems explain why we ended up with two big parties one or other of which wins nearly all the places in the legislature . It follows that anyone having a serious policy at variance with the big twos' has two options 1) to become a member of one of them and seek to change policy from within 2) to make such an issue of his or her policy that the opinion polls show that the public is in favour of it. This results instantly in one or other, usually both, of the two big parties suddenly deciding to adopt it (or a watered down version of it, for widest appeal, and least resistance from its own more conservative voters)

Both options are avoided by proportional representation. The idea is that if a new party has a policy, a platform, which appeals to say, 25% of the electorate then it will get 25% of the seats, and so on. The electorate has the choice of chosing from a wide variety of candidates and policies any of whom may closely reflect their personal views; they have a reasonable chance that such views will be represented in the legislature by a member of that persuasion. As it stands it is a question of hoping that one or other of the big two will have or adopt the policy; in the meantime, if they do not, there is no representative in the House to argue , propose, or vote for, it.

(In the UK we have a third nationwide party, holding about one tenth of the seats in the House of Commons but it has only the , rather forlorn, hope of holding the balance of power. It regularly complains that its policies, resisted by both big parties as utterly wrong, prove popular in the polls whereupon the two big ones have a Damascene conversion and pretend either that they thought that way all along or say " Well, circumstances have changed so now the policy is workable.." or some such hypocritical explanation .)

In the case of presidential elections the countries vary . In France, for example, candidates are eliminated if they receive less than a certain percentage of the vote until there is a run off between those candidates who have polled the highest percentages. The vote is direct, no 'colleges'.

It is not always as attractive as it might seem. There is a temptation for every egomaniac or hair-splitting faction to form their own party. This may, for all practical purposes, be indistinguishable from many others. So, in a presidential election in France there was a big surprise for anyone to the left of Chirac. There were so many parties representing the left and so many refused to ally or give way to the others that the two candidates who qualified for the run-off were Chirac and Le Pen. Le Pen really qualified by default; default of a candidate of a unified left. Le Pen belongs to what might politely be termed the Xenophobic right (though anyone on the right, me included, would be horrified to call him 'of the right', it is conventional to do so).He plainly believes that any non-white, especially those from North Africa should not be allowed into France; he is disposed to think that those already there are people who cause crime and most other social ills.He recently claimed that France was fine under the rule of the Vichy government in WW2 (i.e. the one permitted by Hitler.It ruled that part of France not directly ruled by Germany. It was entirely under German influence . Its secret police force was headed by a Nazi German officer and so on )

Such is the law of unintended consequences in action.He was, naturally, defeated in a landslide.

Having lived in countries with both systems I'd suggest not to be so quick to praise proportional representation.

Whilst it has the advantage that smaller parties (minority voices) get a chance to influence national policy & legislation it also has the disadvantage that smaller parties get a chance to influence national policy & legislation. Yes, it's a contradiction.

The idea is fine but in practice what results is a majority view held hostage by minority interests. Governments also result in the 'lowest common denominator' because no single party is able to muster enough votes on its own. The result is a series of coalition governments which must always pursue a path of least resistance. In good times, no problem. In bad times, no action. Time and again, when times get bad and tough (and unpopular) choices have to be made. Coalition governments in countries with proportional representation find it extremely easy to debate issues but extremely difficult (if not impossible) to implement remedial actions.

IMO, 'first past the post' is better for bad times and adequate in good times. Proportional representation' is adequate in good times and fails miserably in bad times.

Then you may have to deal with one of hundreds of other parties, like the American Nazi Party or the Socialist Party

Proportional representation produces an absurd result in the one UK election that we have that uses it. The European Parliamentary Election is by P.R. That is when we elect our Members of the European Parliament. The result is that several members elected by P.R. represent a party whose sole platform is the removal of the UK from the European Union and so the European Parliament. You may be interested that these people, committed to the abolition of this institution, and our membership of the Union, nevertheless still claim the large salaries and expenses as Members of the very Parliament they are sworn to abolish ! Of course they qualify because they garner a percentage of the vote,that small percentage itself,presumably, a protest.

Now that is a bizarre consequence of the system.