More parties or no parties: the politics of electoral reform in America

In More Parties or No Parties, Jack Santucci traces the origins and performance of proportional representation in US cities, the reasons for repeal in all but one case, and discusses the implications of this history for current reform movements in US cities and states, as well as at the national level. Santucci also introduces a new shifting-coalitions theory, which argues that electoral reform is likely in periods of party-system instability. Drawing on extensive research in cities with experience of proportional representation, Santucci provides a timely and insightful theory of electoral reform with advice for the next generation of reformers.

"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"--

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 on 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 twenty-four 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.

"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"--