Disclaimer
Please note that my opinions are my own, and the opinions of the anyone or any institution quoted are theirs. The opinions expressed herein do not reflect the opinion of North Carolina State University, its board of directors, the College of Management or any other college, Student Media Authority, or WKNC Raleigh.
During a lecture last January, a thought occurred to me: perhaps judicial review is a major contributor to passive citizenship.
By establishing Judicial Review, the US Supreme Court effectively took the job of monitoring legislation from irritated citizens and gave it to learned lawyers. In and of itself, this may be a more efficient way of reviewing legislation, striking bad law, and keeping legislators in line.
However, "passive citizenship" is a common problem in America, which I personally categorize as a general disinterest in politics, issues "beneath" learned citizens, and debates. The latter may cause a drop in participation if one fears confrontation, offending someone, or failing to make a point (or simply making an ass of one's self).
In a country where the government takes over this role, what incentives do citizens have in participating in the political process if their vector of preferences includes risk-averse behaviors noted above.
Then does a multiparty system actually encourage debate? More views expressed publicly by politicians or celebrities may make more people feel comfortable with expressing their own views, writing their congressman, or by participating in a local peaceful protest. Power to the people.
My thoughts on the value of a multi-party system are in the post immediately preceding this one. However, an interesting question remains...
Can coalitions be thought of functioning as a "third party?"
For some information on coalitions, check yellow dog democrat history, including some humorous descriptions of different flavors of dems, as well as the Blue Dog Coalition official page and wiki article. It might be fun to check out a direct comparison as well.
I think the simplest answer to my question is "no, because coalitions are too small and too unknown to have the required effects." Coalitions don't seem to receive much special media attention, nor do citizens generally describe themselves in terms of coalitions.
Well, I will. I think I could, maybe, be a considered a sort-of-blue-dog-dem. How's that for straddling the fence?
Anyone know of similar republican coalitions?
Any well-connected reader might have noticed third-party candidate news during the last election, and I'm sure it will come up again. With movies like Man of the Year becoming more popular, the ideas of third parties and general political change are enjoyed by most of the public.
Train of thought:
- Third parties create political dialog through special interest proposals
- Third parties reduce polarization through increased choice (it's tough to be "in the middle" of three diverse groups)
- Legislative debate and dialog produce ideas
- More ideas are better than less ideas (due to increased choice)
- Third parties encourage public debate (in homes and/or media)
- Public opinion influences elected official behavior (perhaps principal-agent connection)
- Ideas will be "purchased" in the market through policy
- Only quality policy will pass the rigorous debate phase
- Quality policy increases voter happiness, participation
Hypotheses:
- Quality of policy after established third party participation increases.
- Quality policy increases voter participation.
Maybe:
- Quality policy has spillover effects: decreasing bureaucracy or its costs, increasing satisfaction, decreasing domestic unrest or terrorism, increased unemployment, efficient taxing, &c.
