> Yes, I understand that FPTP means two party rule, and PR many little
> parties. However, I still don't see the necessary connection between
> two-party rule and a stunted welfare state.
There isn't a NECESSARY connection at all. There's a complex contributory connection, which is by no means certain. Still, it opens up possibilities. And for those of us who take the DEMOCRATIC part of "democratic left" seriously, the purely democratic arguments I've already mentioned are compelling in themselves.
> Britain instituted a very
> advanced (at the time) natonal health care system in the 40's.
At the same time the US was passing Taft-Hartley. Both had 2-party systems. Different political dynamics, obviously.
> France has moved to a FPTP system recently to prevent
> the neofascists from getting any deputies, and social
> democracy is alive and kicking there.
Not due to FPTP, though. Due much more the general strike, no? What France will be like if it sticks with FPTP for a generation is a much better indiciation of how to judge it--though even then it would only be one factor. As strongly as I feel about the importance of proportional representation for making democracy POSSIBLE, I have no illusions that by itself it will make democracy real.
> Why doesn't the US have a center-left party and a hard-left
> one, instead of the current Demopublicacy?
Because it's the land of opportunism. If we HAD had proportional representation from about the time of the secret ballot (like proportional representation, the secret ballot was an innovation first introduced in Australia), then the Populists might well have survived as a party, and changed the whole political dynamic of our politics.
> I suspect that PR or FPTP have a lot less to do with it
> than the way campaings are funded.
Actually, the two are inter-related. Money is far more important in head-to-head races.
> If the US moved to a PR system, a seat in congress
> would still require to extract one to 20 million
> dollars from donors.
Not necessarily. Under a PR system, someone with strong foundations in a movement can more easily be elected without having to compromise those foundations. They don't have to try to reach & persuade 50%+1 of anybody. All they have to do is cross a much lower threashold. (The formula for election is (1/N)+1: 50%+1 for a 1-seat race, 10%+1 for a 9-seat race.) Money is conceivably far less of a factor under such an arrangement--provided people take advantage of the opportunity that's there.
> We may end up with a small nutjob libertarian party, a
> larger Christian fundamentalist party, a large-corp.
> party (from which a small-business party would probably
> split eventually), and smaller union, black and hispanic
> parties.
If we don't take advantage of the opportunity, that's a distinct possibility. That's why it's important to have discussions like this, to gain an understanding of the profound opportunities that proportional representation opens up.
For example, the MAIN problem that proportional representation would create if it were implemented immediately would be a drastic reduction in black and hispanic representation, because of drastically low levels of voter participation. I forget the actual numbers, but minority seats in the state legislature here in the LA area have vote totals AT LEAST 2-3 times lower than affluent white seats.
But if that could be overcome, the benefits would be astounding. Just one example: with equivilent voting levels in those districts, we'd have avoided 16 years of Repbulican gubenatorial rule in California. In turn, this would have opened considerably more space for progressive initiatives from below through the legislature.
This isn't a panacea by any means. In fact, its just an invitiation to a different arena of struggle. But it's an arena that CAN be a much more meaningful struggle of ideas and values that will favor the left in the long run because it's inherintly more open to critical discourse and nuanced positions, and more resistent to slick propaganda and demonization.
> Politics would still be dominated by the
> right-wing coalitions that can afford all the TV ads,
> just like it is today.
Naturally the thing to do is put forward a broad perscription of things to do to reinvigorate real democracy. This would include: (1) Proportional representation, (2) public financing of campaigns, and (3) free media time for political debates structured by a process of deliberative polling ala the National Issues Convention put on at the University of Texas in January 1996.
In combination these three would reinforce each other and produce a far more substanital result than any one of them could accomplish by itself.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"