More Parties or No Parties

How should we think about electoral reform? What are the prospects for modern-day efforts to reform away the two-party system? This book offers a 'shifting coalitions' theory of electoral-system change, puts the Progressive Era in comparative perspective, and warns against repeating history. It casts reform as an effort to get or keep control of government, usually during periods of party realignment. Reform can be used to insulate some coalition, dislodge the one in power, or deal with noncommittal 'centrists.' Whether reform lasts depends less on the number of parties than whether it helps coalitions hold themselves together. This is where the Progressives got it wrong. Unable to win support for 'multi-party politics,' they built a reform movement on the idea of 'no parties.' They polarized local politics on the issue of 'corruption,' won proportional representation in 24 cities, then watched (and sometimes joined) its repeal in all but one case. Along the way, they found they needed parties after all, but the rules they had designed were not up to the task. This movement's legacy still shapes American politics: nonpartisan elections to undersized city councils. Today's reformers might do well to make peace with parties, and their critics might do well to make peace with having more. Keywords: American political development, comparative democratic institutions, electoral systems, institutional choice, party realignment, party systems, ranked-choice voting, representation, single transferable vote, social movements--