Could the GoP/Trump Win Under A Proportional System?

[Zardnaar]

The GoP hasn't won the popular vote for around 20 years. In a discussion last night I argued they could. I'm not saying this is likely but plausible. Consider.

1. You would campaign differently. Imagine Trump in California 2016 filling 40-80k stadiums or whatever. That's going to create headlines.

2. MAGA would be the biggest party. Democrats are a coalition in effect centre right though to the progressives. They're really 2-4 parties. GoP is also 2 parties at least.

3. Numbers involved. 45% vs 47% means a swing of 1-2% you're out.

4. Wasted votes. Here around 5% of votes are wasted. You don't need 51% just 51% of 95% that turn up on election day.. That's around 47.5%. See comment 3.

5. The bad faith big man (or women). A spoiler candidate might be able to get 5-20% of the vote. Even if they campaign against someone they may decide to support that candidate anyway. This will likely tank their % but it's happened here.

6. Similar to 6 but said candidate leaves it open to who they support. They actively campaign on it. With a very small % of the vote they're in the Kingmaker position. A centrist party of 5-10% is the Kingmaker.

7. Bad faith list MPs go rogue and vote for the other side. They're dog tucker next election but if the numbers are close a handful can do that.


These are just some obvious things I thought of.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I presume a great many things would change in terms of campaigning.

The largest demarcation I see emerging in the US is college educated versus non-college, before anything else, not even income levels.
I don't think this has anything to do with levels of intelligence but cultures associated with each; different backgrounds you are exposed to on the immediate career path vs. continuing education and such.
With that said I think the Republicans nabbing private sector labor unions is quite doable...

But as of now, a nation-wide popular vote is and has been a sort-of irrelevant concept. (The US already has a sort-of popular vote, it's just divided between the 50 states).

 

[Arwon]

Under a proportional system they'd have more parties like most European countries, and the GOP would be sitting on 20% while a more explicitly white nationalist party lately rises, with a bunch of articles written how young men are having a crisis of masculinity and that's why it's women's fault the boys are swinging to fascism.

The President is still kinda one person though. Can't really make that proportional.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You don't need to be male to swing toward fascism. The premier of my province is living proof of that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Under a proportional system they'd have more parties like most European countries, and the GOP would be sitting on 20% while a more explicitly white nationalist party lately rises, with a bunch of articles written how young men are having a crisis of masculinity and that's why it's women's fault the boys are swinging to fascism.

The President is still kinda one person though. Can't really make that proportional.

What % do you see GoP at? Under Trump I would see 35%. Similar number if it was a new MAGA party. Could go as low as 25%.

The "New GoP" would be 10% plus whatever they could attract off the dems, independents and non voters.

Never Trumpers could also maybe get 5-10% if they attracted some of the center right dems and could anchor it to a senator or something.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Probably 45%. Not much drop off from his current numbers in a proportional system.

His core voters have bought into MAGA as an identity. The non-core usually like his strongman brand or his irreverence. He's a lightning rod for discontent against the system and several worldviews simultaneously. He probably doesn't lose many of either because he'd still be Trump.

As also correctly noted, the American left has pretty big gaps between its various factions and wings. Probably more than the Republicans. They'd be hurt worse.

The only real shot for significant fracture in Trumpworld a proportional system would be between the Evangelicals and the more moderate chauvinists like Trump. That alliance could get uneasy.

 

[Zardnaar]

Probably 45%. Not much drop off from his current numbers in a proportional system.

His core voters have bought into MAGA as an identity. The non-core usually like his strongman brand or his irreverence. He's a lightning rod for discontent against the system and several worldviews simultaneously. He probably doesn't lose many of either because he'd still be Trump.

As also correctly noted, the American left has pretty big gaps between its various factions and wings. Probably more than the Republicans. They'd be hurt worse.

The only real shot for significant fracture in Trumpworld a proportional system would be between the Evangelicals and the more moderate chauvinists like Trump. That alliance could get uneasy.

Well 45% is assuming the GoP remains intact.

There's probably at least two new right ring parties. Never trumpers and Libertarian.

 

[Tee Kay]

All of these "Hidden Tribes" would have their own political parties.

Typical election:

Popular Front (coalition of CPUSA, PSL, PCUSA, and similar parties): 3%

Progressive Alliance (coalition of DSA, Green Party, maybe a reformed Progressive Party): 6%

Democratic Party (home of the Traditional Liberals and most Passive Liberals): 20%

Forward Party (centrist party for some Passive Liberals and reengaged Disengaged): 13%

Freedom Party (esoteric populist party a la Five Star Movement in Italy, absorbing the rest of the Disengaged): 18%

National Union Party (party of the Moderates, maybe growing out of the Lincoln Project hence the name): 15%

Republican Party (home of the Traditional Conservatives): 19%

America First! Party (Devoted Conservatives): 6%

There would of course have to be a coalition government, or at least (if a presidential system is maintained) a majority in Congress to pass bills. PF and AFP will be too difficult to work with. A centre-left coalition of Dem+FP+PA = 39% and the centre-right coalition of GOP+NUP = 34%. The Freedom Party as the kingmaker, and it could go either way on economic issues but on immigration and most social issues it would lean right, so we get a GOP-led coalition with 52% of the popular vote but which excludes the most extreme fringe rightists.

 

[amadeus]

I think the problem with these kinds of scenarios assume that everything else stays equal when we can’t make that assumption. One of the technical issues to get out of the way here in the American case is how the president would be elected: would you still have a college of electors? Would the party-lists have an endorsed candidate?

The other thing that is a problem for me is assuming that no party would change its policies, which I don’t think is the case: I think for the most part there is a flexibility within each party that would allow for adjustments to their platforms to match the new rules.

Another technical issue on the presidency in particular: each president is elected for a four-year term. Suppose one loses confidence in the government, would that force a new election? I think that America’s unique position as first among the Western world, it would be better to keep the stability and relative predictability of four-year administrations. Certainly true considering the number of administrative appointments and such that make the transitions from one administration to another perhaps a bit more eventful than in countries where there are fewer appointees and more permanent civil servants.

 

[EvaDK]

Multi-parlamentarism is just better and quicker to introduce and implement new thinking and new political strategies. It's often the smaller political parties that arise and attract voters with new ideas and some of these, then bleed into the larger more traditional parties, which usually make the backbone of any coalition government. The smaller parties sometimes come and go, but they push things in directions that wouldn't have been possible in a two-party system.

Also, multi-parlamentarism and coalition governments promotes a culture of co-operation despite political differences, instead of promoting a culture of division and the 'us vs them' mindset.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hmmm...I thought that a proportional system would be one where electoral votes would be counted at the congressional level and not state level, as in NM has 3 congressional districts and the winner in each would get an electoral college vote. That seems a more likely and interesting scenario.

 

[KMRblue1027]

EC by district is a terrible idea objectively the worst choice as it allows gerrymandering the presidency. Statewide then decided by vote share would be better then what we currently have but won't happen without an amendment states won't disarm a tool like winner take all without being forced.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm assuming you woukd have some amount of districts, no gerrymandering and list MPs topping up the numbers.

President would be elected via congress which is formed from popular vote at least proportionally. So if MAGA, GoP, and Libertarians coalition for exampkeit's whoever they agree on but probably the leader of the biggest party.

 

[Arwon]

Hmmm...I thought that a proportional system would be one where electoral votes would be counted at the congressional level and not state level, as in NM has 3 congressional districts and the winner in each would get an electoral college vote. That seems a more likely and interesting scenario.

That's just single member districts. Very much the opposite of proportional representation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

EC by district is a terrible idea objectively the worst choice as it allows gerrymandering the presidency. Statewide then decided by vote share would be better then what we currently have but won't happen without an amendment states won't disarm a tool like winner take all without being forced.

OK. so NM has five votes and if the presidential vote goes 60/40 democratic then 3 go to Harris and 2 to Trump rather than 5 for Harris. I wonder what TX, NY, CA and FL would like based on 2020?

 

[Arwon]

I don't think talking about the electoral college makes any sense in the context of proportional representation. If you could achieve something so ambitious as PR you'd obviously also get rid of such an insane archaic contrivance and just do a nationwide vote for the presidency. Or just straightup switch to a parliamentary system.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think talking about the electoral college makes any sense in the context of proportional representation. If you could achieve something so ambitious as PR you'd obviously also get rid of such an insane archaic contrivance and just do a nationwide vote for the presidency. Or just straightup switch to a parliamentary system.

This.

No EC in effect congress would elect the president probably via a coalition.

Proportional determines congress.

And purely hypothetical.

 

[Zardnaar]

We have an answer.