I was thinking about the conversation we had a few months ago about abortion in Oklahoma:
Surveys find Oklahomans to be less supportive of abortion rights than the average in the U.S., but still more supportive than not. So that’s “moderately pro-choice” compared to a 50/50 baseline. According to this Pew Research summary, 51% in Oklahoma say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, 45% say illegal in all or most cases.
At the same time, a bill in the Oklahoma legislature to ban almost all abortions passed on 73-16 vote.
As I wrote at the time:
It does not defy political gravity for a legislature to vote in a way different from public opinion: issues are bundled, there’s political polarization, the whole thing is tangled up with national politics, also there’s some sort of pent-up demand from activists who can push anti-abortion legislation in a way that they could not do for fifty years. So, lots going on.
And abortion’s not the only issue where there’s a lack of congruence (as Lax and Phillips put it) between opinion and state policies. One familiar example is the death penalty, which has been popular in most states for many decades but is rarely carried out anywhere in the country.
Still, that all said . . . a 73-16 vote in the legislature is a striking deviation from a 50-50 split in the population, indicating something about how politics works in this country.
I think there’s more to be said here, not just about abortion but about politics in general. The overall pattern is that the average attitudes on most issues don’t vary that much in most states, but persistent one-party control of states (due to partisan polarization) leads to extreme policies at the state level. Long-term this should resolve itself through party competition, but I guess that could take awhile.
When put this way, none of the above should sound surprising. But I don’t know that people are so aware of these aggregation issues.
If you hear that the Oklahoma legislature overwhelmingly passed an anti-abortion bill, this might seem like no big deal: Oklahoma’s a very conservative state, so, yeah, they get very conservative policies, just like they overwhelmingly want. But, no, most Oklahoma voters don’t want an abortion ban. What is true is that a clear majority of Oklahoma voters don’t like the Democrats, and they don’t have much of an opportunity to express support for abortion without voting for a Democrat, which they’d rather not do.
> and they don’t have much of an opportunity to express support for abortion without voting for a Democrat, which they’d rather not do.
I’d turn that around in a way, at least for some. Voting for a Democrat-bashing Republican is a way for some of them to express contempt for librulz. Just as it would work for some in blue states in reverse
Sounds like some serious issues with our election and political processes. If voters don’t have any choices that really reflect their views, and those views are not held by a small minority, then our processes are failing to provide them with adequate choices. Unlike an economic market, I don’t really see competitive forces that should work to correct this – if anything, the competitive forces seem to have created this situation.
I’m no fan of a single party system. Multiple parties has some appeal to me, but those also seem to run into problems where small minorities exert undue influences (I’m not at all sure about this observation, but those of you that are familiar with those systems can speak to that). But our two party system sure doesn’t seem to work well in my opinion.
Dale –
> If voters don’t have any choices that really reflect their views,…
There’s a hierarchy of views. Voting for Republicans fits with their views on some issues but not others. So they choose based on that hierarchy. In no representative system could voting for candidates reflect their views on all issues. And the alternative of a direct democracy would have other problems, obviously.
I see (at least) 2 issues then: first, while no system is perfect some systems may be better than others. So, no candidate will match all their views, but does our current system result in elected representatives as close as possible to the most important views of the public? Second, once elections are over, how accountable are elected officials to the voters? I think our system doesn’t do well on this second account, and I view that as resulting from the large role of money in the election process in our media laden world (as well as redistricting, party processes, and other institutions in our system).
Good questions.
I think certainly, though, as you get to, your questions are overwhelmed by the outsized influence of money, lobbying, etc. So I’m wondering if in this country it’s not so much about the mechanics of the system in a more general sense, but more about one aspect of the system which throws it out of whack. Without the outsized influence of political spending, I think we’d be closer to a more representative system despite all the warts.
This is why I am a big fan of Jungle Primaries. You have all candidates from all parties/no-party run at once and the top 2 face off in the general election. In places where one party is dominant in national elections it often leads to general elections with different members of the same party facing off which allows for more inner party fighting that includes members of the minority party. You see this sometimes in place like San Francisco where the general election is between two democrats but who differ of issues like housing policy. It meant that housing was the key issue in the race instead of a standard R v D race where both candidates preach to the choir. In this case, a generally conservative candidate who supports some legal abortion would have a decent chance of winning even in a pretty red district if most voters are slightly pro-choice statewide.
Downside is in relatively competitive seats; the majority party can get shut out if there is less unity about who the party nominee is, but a good local party can minimize that issue. (I once worked on a local campaign where this happened.)
Dale:
“Multiple parties…also seem to run into problems where small minorities exert undue influences”
My anecdotal observation: multiparty systems aren’t much different than the current US system. Some countries have 2-3 separate parties from each side of the political spectrum that work together; we have one party from each side of the political spectrum, each of which has subgroups that work together within the larger party. If a minority group has a minority position, it’s still minority, whether its in an independent party or a subgroup of a larger party.
IMO it’s extremely rare if not impossible for “small minorities exert undue influence”. First, lots of what appear to be “small minorities” are just people or groups who sit on the fulcrum of public opinion.
Perhaps I’m making a wrong guess, but you might be thinking that, for example, Joe Manchin wields “undue influence”. But that’s kind of like saying that, if you plan on flipping a penny 101 times, if it’s tied after 100 flips, the last flip as “undue influence” on the majority. In reality he’s just near the fulcrum of a nearly perfectly balanced weight of public opinion on some issues. He can shift the majority, yes, but only because he’s at the fulcrum. If he was slightly to the right or left, he’d be irrelevant. In effect, he *is* public opinion on those issues. he’s the last penny to flip of 101 flips.
Second, whether “small minorities exert undue influences” depends on how you count them. I’ll address that in a separate comment.
I was actually thinking of what I perceive as the exaggerated influence of the far right on the Republican Party and the far left on the Democratic Party. It is hard for me to envision moderate candidates being very successful in the US any more (and I’d actually view Manchin as more moderate than most).
OK, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree, Manchin is a moderate, which is why he’s at the center of so many issues.
I’m not sure how to think about the opposite extremes issue. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Yes, I agree, in one sense they are exerting undue influence, but in another sense they aren’t achieving much except to keep anything from happening, at least on a national level.
Chipmunk’s point notwithstanding, I think there are many examples in other countries where small parties in multi-party systems wield outsized influence. Israel would was an example I was thinking of.
But my new buddy, ChatGPT, came up with this:
Open sidebar
DUP’s UK Parliamentary Influence
Joshua
Can you provide an example where a small party in a multi-party governmental structure wields outsized power
One example of a small party wielding outsized power in a multi-party governmental structure is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) in the UK Parliament.
The DUP is a small political party based in Northern Ireland that holds only 10 seats in the UK Parliament. However, due to the nature of the parliamentary system in the UK, the ruling Conservative Party was unable to secure a parliamentary majority in the 2017 general election, and therefore had to seek the support of other parties to pass legislation.
The Conservative Party formed a minority government and entered into a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, meaning that the DUP would support the Conservative government on key votes, such as the budget and votes of confidence, in exchange for certain concessions and funding for Northern Ireland.
As a result, the DUP effectively held a balance of power in the UK Parliament, even though they held only a small number of seats. They were able to influence key government policies and decisions, such as the Brexit negotiations, and their support was crucial in allowing the Conservative government to remain in power.
Andrew’s post views “public opinion” through the voting lens, one person, one vote. There are two factors here which are somewhat misleading.
First, there’s the obvious problem of geographic distribution. What constitutes a “majority” depends on how geographic boundaries are drawn. As I indicated to Andrew in his original post, it’s likely that the slim pro-choice majority in Oklahoma is concentrated in a few districts in Oklahoma city. So what’s “majority” opinion in OKC won’t be “majority” in 95% of the state. We have a similar condition here in WA, where Governors, Senators and most state wide initiatives decided pretty much in King County, where Seattle is. The rest of the state routinely votes different:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/results/washington/senate
IN the recent Senatorial election, Patty Murray won in only 9/36 counties. In the majority of counites (22/36), she was under 45% of the vote. Take out King County and even with her 57% victory state wide, Murray loses. It seems pretty obvious why there is a consistent low-level movement east of the Cascades to split from WA state.
Also, the vote-by-vote majority is obviously what some groups believe is the “right” way to count public opinion. But it’s not the only way influence is exerted – because it’s not the only way to assess what’s best for society as a whole.
Economic distribution:
Economic productivity is critical for the stability of any country, and people who are economically productive always should and always will have an outsized influence on political control. It wouldn’t surprise me (although I don’t know for sure) if the collective economic output of the “pro-choice” group in Oklahoma is smaller than the “pro-life” group – e.g., poor people in the city are pro-choice. In WA state, the economic distribution on that issue would probably be the opposite. But on this and many other issues, the distribution of economic productivity is appropriately relevant.
Natural resource distribution:
Tragically or otherwise, population centers depend on the resources produced in the hinterlands. In the US, an overwhelming majority of US natural resources, from renewable energy to materials to agriculture, are produced in red counties, which mostly oppose the restrictions on production implemented by consuming popular majorities that live in blue counties. The discrepancy is tolerable to a certain extent, but at some point if the producers and and consumers get too far apart, political stability will deteriorate.
So the equal ballot is a nice ideal when your position is in the majority. However, since economic and natural resources aren’t produced equally on a geographic or individual basis, from the point of view of a stable society and what’s best overall for society, it’s necessarily the appropriate way to consider issues. Not all legislators get that, but some do.
Chipmunk –
> Tragically or otherwise, population centers depend on the resources produced in the hinterlands
There are plenty of examples where populations in the hinterlands depend on the output of population centers.
Am I right that you have a view that there’s a clear directional imbalance? If so, what’s your basis for that view?
BTW – your “economic distribution” resoning seems similarly limited. Those you seem to see as being the “economically productive” depend on the much larger populous for their economic productivity.
This notion that you can just reverse engineer manifest political agency from measuring “economic productivity” seems to me to depend on highly subjective metrics you just derived from your ideological preferences.
“Economic distribution:
Economic productivity is critical for the stability of any country, and people who are economically productive always should and always will have an outsized influence on political control. It wouldn’t surprise me (although I don’t know for sure) if the collective economic output of the “pro-choice” group in Oklahoma is smaller than the “pro-life” group – e.g., poor people in the city are pro-choice. In WA state, the economic distribution on that issue would probably be the opposite. But on this and many other issues, the distribution of economic productivity is appropriately relevant.”
Huh?
https://hceconomics.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/events/Yankow_2006_JUE_v60_why-do-cities.pdf
Looking aside the facile treatment of “economic productivity”…
> It wouldn’t surprise me (although I don’t know for sure) if the collective economic output of the “pro-choice” group in Oklahoma is smaller than the “pro-life” group – e.g., poor people in the city are pro-choice.
Not sure where to find views on abortion by income, but scroll down to see polling to use education as a proxy.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
https://hceconomics.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/events/Yankow_2006_JUE_v60_why-do-cities.pdf
“people who are economically productive always should and always will have an outsized influence on political control”
I can’t just let this pass without at least a whimper. Whether or not they “should” have an outsized influence is at least debatable. I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but I think it is dangerous to just make that assumption without thinking carefully about it and considering what it means and what the alternatives are.
Interesting, I wonder how connected (or disconnected) other states are between the Pew research data and recent legislature votes on abortion.
It can’t be repeated often enough… Score voting is critical to improving candidate choice.
Issue polls are so strange. I agree there is definitely a filter in political decisions and positions on an issue that do not line up completely.
I would also say public opinion is one parameter that goes into the winner of elections, especially state offices that are even further removed from public scrutiny than federal or local offices. How many people here know what their state senator or state house member is up to?