Yes, let’s establish one party states for the good of the people. Here, here! Indefinite reelections for everyone!

We already have a de facto one-party government in the U.S. The democrats are undistinguishable from the republicans on most issues that matter . There is no real debate about anything.

What have the democrats done about their pledge to end the war? Essentially nothing, they are too scared; and now some of them are even joining the chorus of crazy war mongers urging an attack on Iran. They can’t even summon enough courage to block the nomination to the Justice Department of a fellow who refuses to repudiate torture. It’s just pitiful.

Whether Hillary or Rudy next year, it will just be more of the same. No wonder people don’t even bother to vote.

Yes, let’s establish one party states for the good of the people. Here, here!

Well, that comment just doesn't make any sense, Miguel. Whatever the merits or demerits of ending presidential term limits, it isn't even slightly accurate to equate it with "one party" statism.

I assume that in a one-person state, the executive belongs to one party (his/hers), unless he/she has multiple personalities. But I see your point. A one-party state at least presupposes an institutionalized political party that can impose checks on the leader's authority. In the absence of that, such a regime is a "sultanistic" regime (following Juan Linz's typology).

I assume that in a one-person state, the executive belongs to one party (his/hers), unless he/she has multiple personalities. But I see your point. A one-party state at least presupposes an institutionalized political party that can impose checks on the leader's authority. In the absence of that, such a regime is a "sultanistic" regime (following Juan Linz's typology).

But you're still missing quite a lot here. The executive branch is not synonomous with the state, especially in presidential systems that allow for opposition control of the legislature. In South America, there's no such thing as a "one-person state." Perhaps you think there's a "one-person state" in Venezuela, but it would simply be fallacious to suggest that. Venezuela has a judicial branch and an electoral council, both of which have made decisions against the executive branch in recent years. Perhaps you didn't notice recently that, when the executive branch demanded that RCTV run the president's speeches on its new cable channel, the Supreme Court rejected the executive branch's legal argument, thus allowing RCTV to continue broadcasting via cable without running the president's speeches. Moreover, the mere existence of free elections is a check on executive power, as Przeworski has long emphasized. In addition, Venezuela's legislative branch, which has varying parties and tendencies within it (even though most parties currently represented are aligned with Chavez), has an independent legislative role. Perhaps you're also unaware of the fact that, when Chavez asked that all parties in the governing coalition unify into one "Socialist" party, two key partners in the coalition --Patria para Todos and the Communist Party-- refused to do so but have nonetheless remained part of the governing coalition.

The notion that any state in which different parties freely compete could be a "one-person state" is pure silliness. It's certainly conceivable that there could be a one-person party, but that's entirely distinct from a "one-person state." Terms like "one-person state" are nothing more than hysterical propaganda that have no factual basis in modern-day South America.

A regime in which ministers have to tune in to a weekly television show to find out whether they have been fired or not is too close to a sultanistic regime for comfort. Besides, you seem to forget that "ideal types" (such as "sultanistic regimes") are exactly that, typological ideal types. No regime approaches them completely. But I believe it's simply logical that a country ruled by a one-person party is a de facto one-person state.

Am I being hyperbolic? Absolutely. Was the above post filled with sarcasm? Only a fool wouldn't have noticed.

I believe it's simply logical that a country ruled by a one-person party is a de facto one-person state.

Am I being hyperbolic? Absolutely. Was the above post filled with sarcasm? Only a fool wouldn't have noticed.

Call me a fool, then, because what I notice is that you're spouting utter nonsense that, if seriously scrutinized, would be rejected out of hand by virtually any political scientist in the business. Only in George Orwell's 1984 and in totalitarian states lacking basic individual freedoms does it become tenable to equate one party with the state. In modern-day South America, any such conflation is completely absurd and completely untenable. The very existence of competitive elections, in which multiple parties compete, renders the argument completely untenable. Only in the absence of competitive elections could we even begin to entertain such a wild notion.

Is it wrong to describe Mexico between the 1930s through the 1990s as a "one-party dominant" state? Because that has been the convention.

Is it wrong to describe Mexico between the 1930s through the 1990s as a "one-party dominant" state? Because that has been the convention.

But, see, now you're switching tracks. Mexico didn't have competitive elections, so it is in no way comparable to Venezuela. Mexico was more or less a one-party state. Venezuela is not. Even within the Venezuelan government's ministries, multiple parties are represented, and there are far more parties still that hold local office throughout the country.

I invite you to pull up the Polity IV data set and compare the scores they give to Mexico pre-1994 and Venezuela in the Chavez years. Even the conservative designers of the Polity data set recognize that Venezuela's existing political system is light years more competitive than Mexico's prior to 1994.

Oh, I didn't realize that non-Chavistas had representation in the cabinet. That's a relief to learn!

But seriously, now. I'm not so concerned with whether Venezuela TODAY is a one-party state like Mexico prior to 1994. I'm worried about its current trajectory. You, on the other hand, seem nonchallantly unconcerned.

I took you up on the invite to pull up the Polity IV data (which I do use from time to time). You are correct. But just so we don't have selective uses of data, and so that other readers can get a comparative sense:

Polity IV (the fourth round of the Polity project) is a database currently managed by Monty Marshall (George Mason University) and Keith Jaggers (Colorado State University). The project tries to give empirical measures to regimes on an annual basis since 1800 on a scale from -10 (least democratic) to +10 (most democratic).

For 2004, the US, Canada, Trindad, Costa Rica, and Uruguay score +10.

Jamaica, Panama, Chile, and Peru score +9.

Dominican Republic, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina score +8.

Honduras, El Salvador, and Colombia score +7.

Venezuela, Guyana, and Ecuador score +6.

Haiti scores -2 and Cuba scores -7.

According to the Polity IV scores that Justin himself recommended, Venezuela today scores better than only two countries (Cuba & Haiti) in the hemisphere (I didn't list some smaller island countries, but their scores are higher than Venezuela's), and ties with another two (Ecuador & Guyana). From 1969 until 1991, Venezuela scored +9. The country scored +8 until 1998 (the year Chávez took over). It then declined to +7 through 2000.

Comparing Venezuela in 2004 with Mexico under the PRI does show a gap. Mexico scored -6 from 1930-1976. It then scored -3 until 1987, then 0 until 1993, then +4 1993-1996, then +6 1997-2000. It has scored +8 since then. In other words, Venezuela today scores like Mexico did in the last days of PRI dominance. But while Mexico's scores were improving, Venezuela's are moving in the opposite direction (hence my concern with its "trajectory").

Let's see, in Bolivia: Inflation is over 11%, half the country dislkies the other half, foreign investment has virtually dried up, the CA is a joke, and the president espouses the desire to emulate his heroes who are, basically, fascist dictators. There is constant talk of a civil war. The reason for term limits are not to keep one person from power but to prevent those who have the franchise from giving it away. To argue that Vene. is anything more than a one person state, in light of the recent gifts to Chavez of almost unlimited control, is to argue the point of blindness. Chavez knows slightly more about socialism than he does about democracy. Overall socialism has failed. Name some great socialist states. Nazi Germany comes to mind, as does Cuba and Soviet Russia. Remember they had elections too, as did Iraq and various other one party states. Voting is not democracy, choice is. Not to lead everyone astray, I am glad for term limits in the US too. Four more years of W and the US would probalby cease to exist as a free country. But to spread the illusion that Evo or Chavez are pro democratic leaders who are helping to enrich their countries is just plain nonsense. Evo's government is ineffective, corrupt and racist. It is not to to judge it against anything preceeding it, but it is not a step ahead. It is not headed in the direction to maintain personal liberty, choice or the chance for self realization.

My point is that Priista Mexico and Venezuela today aren't comparable, not that the polity data set is unimpeachable. It has very conservative biases, not only against Venezuela (which is actually far more democratic than Colombia) but also against Western European parliamentary systems, for example. The notion that the United States is more democratic than Western Europe is completely absurd. John Dewey once quite accurately described U.S. politics as "the shadow cast on society by big business." Only in the feverish minds of deluded liberal intellectuals does the United States qualify as a perfect democracy.

Yes, of course. Polity IV data is only useful when it support your claims. Otherwise it's rubbish. I forgot.

Yes, of course. Polity IV data is only useful when it support your claims. Otherwise it's rubbish.

No, what I say is that it has real limitations, which I noted from the get-go when I referred to its designers as "conservative." I'm not the only one who notes the polity data set's limitations. There is widespread skepticism about, for example, the notion that the U.S. presidential system is more democratic than Western European parliamentary systems. I'm sure that you --as a comparativist-- are quite well aware of such skepticism.

With regard to your concerns about Venezuela's "trajectory," the bottom line is that nobody has provided a shred of evidence that Venezuela is moving in the direction of unfree and non-competitive elections. Until someone presents serious evidence, there's little reason for anyone to take the claims seriously.

Now, naturally, if the opposition decides to boycott elections, the elections aren't going to be very competitive, but that's the opposition's responsibility, not the government's. The OAS Secretary General summed up the problem quite aptly after the opposition boycotted legislative elections in 2005: "We had a problem with the Venezuelan opposition, which assured us that they would not withdraw from the [electoral] process if certain conditions were met. These were met and, despite this, they withdrew."

Justin Delacour is a paid agent of the Chavista regime. Just google Delacour and vcrisis.com. You're not fooling anyone here.

Justin Delacour is a paid agent of the Chavista regime. Just google Delacour and vcrisis.com.

Gee, big bad Hugo must not be paying me very well, judging by the dumpy little truck that I drive and the fact that I have no savings to speak of. But, hey, if that paragon of journalistic virtue vcrisis.com says so, it must be true.

Justin: You're going to trot out that old canard again?

Uh, what "canard" would that be? The "canard" that vcrisis.com's editor has publicly fantasized about torturing and murdering chavistas. I'm afraid that's not a "canard" at all. That's completely true.

Now, is that what you would call a reliable source of information? You tell me, big fella.

Justin: what part of the word "fantasy" don't you understand?

Galloglass:

Honestly, don't bother w/ Justin anymore. He's long made it clear that he's not interested in discourse. He's interested in perpetuating the stereotype of the internet troll w/ an ideological axe to grind. (Perhaps its some clever parody of Michelle Malkin?) He's already won a widespread reputation for that. I'm still not sure why he's deemed ME worth attacking as a "figure of the establishment" (what a joke! me establishment?). I'm a junior faculty member at a small liberal arts college. I don't have any "pull" in the policy world (and not much even in academia). But if it helps him stroke his ego, make a name for himself (an unpleasant one, but nevertheless), I certainly can't stop him.

The Polity IV is a good case in point. It was he who introduced it as evidence on his behalf, though w/ the convenient caveat about its "conservative" bias. Of course, he didn't present an argument FOR any bias in Polity IV, he merely stated it. You'll notice a long pattern of this: When he states something, it must be accepted. When someone else counters, he demands proof. But any proof offered, can be dismissed by any statement of his. In essence, that makes his claims unfalsifiable (and therefore, unscientific). I used to teach an undergraduate "critical thinking" (logic & rhetoric) course. These arguments (most of them) fail the minimal standards.

I'm sure he'll respond to this in some bitter, personal, vindictive fashion. That's his cachet. He'll use this as reason to sidestep the argument about Polity IV and its usefulness (it is still the most widely used measure in comparative politics for democracy) and claim lack of proof, etc. He'll ignore that one of the reasons some (but not all) Western European countries had slightly (and only slightly) Polity scores than the US is because some of those countries were consociational democracies in which all major parties formed part of a grand coalition cabinet. This, of course, made elections to some extent meaningless, since the outcome was predetermined. Not unlike the earlier Venezuelan Punto Fijo system, which I'm sure Justin would disapprove of.

For the record, I no longer really respond to "him" at all. But when he raises an offhand, interesting point (like raising Polity IV), I figure why not put up some of the data (since few will download it themselves) and allow readers to make up their own minds.

For the record, I no longer really respond to "him" at all.

You try not to respond because you're usually not a very good debater, Miguel, and I think you know that.

You're also extremely unethical. Let's examine the post above, for example. Above you try to team up with somebody named "GalloGlass" who is SO sleezy that he would actually look to a guy who has publicly fantasized about torturing and murdering chavistas for so-called "evidence" that I'm a "paid agent of the Chavista regime."

That's pretty sleezy, Miguel.

But I will give you one debating point. You're right that I haven't presented any argument FOR bias in Polity IV. That would require more detailed analysis of its methods of scoring (which Gerardo Munck has done). Munck and another author (whose name I don't currently recall) provide pretty compelling evidence that Polity IV doesn't take account of political participation, for example.

There's a case to be made for additional problems. You note, for example, that Venezuela receives a low Polity IV score by Latin American standards. But when polled by Latinobarometro in 2005, the Venezuelan people themselves scored their own political system as more democratic than any other Latin American polity scored its own. (Uruguay also did quite well).

It should be obvious that there are problems with any measure that consistently does not conform with the demos' own views of the state of democracy.

I think the question of participation is not sufficiently taken into account in Polity IV but also that socio-economic factors are wrongly divorced from measurements of democracy. Any economic system in which private resources are heavily concentrated will compromise the openness of the political process in ways that Polity IV does not pick up.

For the record, at no point did I agree w/ V-Crisis. I've never even linked to them. It would take a wild stretch to equate me w/ them. I also don't censor what readers post as comments. But equating me w/ their views is childish and irresponsible.

Yes, Gerardo Munck criticized the Polity scores (although Justin didn't mention that before, only now). And Gerardo was responded to (see Comparative Political Studies Vol 35, No. 1 [2002]). There's no definitive position on the scores on way or another, though they are still widely used (which in a "populist" way says something, I suppose). Again, I did not introduce the Polity scores, Justin did. He used them to support his argument, then dismisses the same database when it may be used against him (such as the now positive reference to Latinobarometer polls which he previously criticized). That's known as selective use of evidence. Also, to borrow a phrase of his, "trying to have it both ways."

He used them to support his argument, then dismisses the same database when it may be used against him (such as the now positive reference to Latinobarometer polls which he previously criticized).

Uh, it would help, Miguel if you would actually be honest. I've never once criticized a Latinobarometro poll.

And I don't "dismiss" the polity scores either. I said it once and I'll say it again. I think they have real limitations and some methodological biases, especially with regard to questions of political participation and socio-economic factors. But the designers of the polity data set have some principles, at least. They certainly have more principles than the designers of Freedom House's data set.

Ummmm... are you suggesting that Freedom House is a tool of The Establishment, Justin? You're hilarious.

Justin has a widesread reputation in academia already. So there's no need to help him make it. He's done a fine job of that all by himself.

That said, all scores have limitations. It would be nice if we saw some data for the claims Justin merely offhandly throws around, so we'd get a better "context" (a sometime-favorite phrase of his) for their validity.

I decided to go back to the Polity IV data that Justin is so concerned about. Since he argued that the scores were wrong because the US scores better than "Western Europe." So, how biased is Polity IV against Western Europe?

Here are all the countries that score +10 (same as the USA) in Western Europe in the last decade or so: the UK, Ireland, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark. The only country that scores low is France (+9). If you include some recent East European democracies, the rest mostly score +9 (e.g. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia). Since +9 is only a point away from (and on a scale from -10 to +10) the differences seems almost trivial.

So where's this gross bias against Western Europe? I encourage all of you to download Polity IV data. It's just an Excel spreadsheet, so you can look for yourself. Here's the link:

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/data/

Justin is a self-proclaimed IR expert, for which he claims I am forced to stand aside from his giant ego and self-professed expertise. Perhaps he will recognize that comparative democratization is not his area of expertise and also stand down? Somehow I doubt it. No doubt there's a witty riposte coming any moment now.

Ummmm... are you suggesting that Freedom House is a tool of The Establishment, Justin?

Precisely. And serious scholars have always understood it to be such. I mean, what do you think Freedom House is, smart guy? Its founding purpose was to serve as an ideological crutch of the United States in the Cold War. The point isn't even controversial.

As for Polity IV, the notion that France is less democratic than the United States is also quite laughable. You see, in France, there's actually something that resembles real political debate. Indeed, the French have come up with this wild and crazy idea that the political system is supposed to offer people at least some modicum of ideological alternatives to choose from. That's why the French have these wild and crazy things like, er, a national health care system and a national day care system.

Of course, if you're an apologist for Freedom House, I can see why you might find such craziness to be less "democratic" than what we have here in the land of the free, home of the brave.

If Justin would take a moment to think (and breathe) he'd notice that I didn't equate FH with Polity. Nor did I argue that FH wasn't controversial (it is; hence my preference for Polity scores).

Perhaps then Justin would look to see why Polity scored France a touch (only a touch, mind you) below the US w/ a still-high +9. Here is the Polity country report for France. Perhaps then he'd notice that the only caveat Polity has for France is that the president (meaning Chirac) was too powerful.

Duverger might also counter Justin by pointing out that it's not that the French have "magically" decided to have more alternatives, but that their electoral system has. Perhaps Justin has come across the famous "Duverger's law" at some point. It argues simply that FPTP (first-past-the-post or "plurality") electoral systems (like in the US & UK) tend to produce two-party systems, while PR (proportional representation) electoral systems (like the kind used in France & other parliamentary systems) tend to produce multiparty systems. So it's not the French who have decided to have multiple ideological alternatives, it's their electoral system.

Perhaps Justin might also remember to be bothered by the fact that for all their multiparty "real political debate" the 2002 French presidential race pitted the center-right Chirac against the far-right Le Pen in a runoff election. The result was that though nearly two thirds of the French electorate voted for someone to the LEFT of Chirac, they had to vote him for president in 2002.

Following, that perhaps Justin might remember that the 2007 French election pitted Sarkozy (center-right) against Royal (center-left) in a presidential runoff. But most polls suggested that had Bayrou (center) placed second, he would have beaten either Sarkozy or Royal. Since Sarkozy won, the evidence suggests that despite the French preference for center or center-left candidates, they tend to end up w/ center-right ones. Seems like a stacked deck to me. Perhaps a reason for a low Polity score?

Perhaps Justin would also notice that a number of countries that have universal health care & multiparty parliamentary systems w/ list-PR also score +10, most notably "socialist" Sweden.

But I suppose facts are irrelevant in the face of truly convincing ideological fervor. Can I have some more pabulum, please?

I don't think it's fair to lump Morales and Correa and even the Kirchners with rest of your examples. Evo has been in office for less than two years. He will only be given the right to run for another (immediate) term if he bargains away much else his party values.

John:

I agree. In part, my post was originally meant to be rather sardonic. But it is odd that so many leaders are now actively seeking ways to extend presidential mandates. The one case that least fits this model, of course, is the Kirchner case (since no attempt was made to alter the constitution).

Duverger might also counter Justin by pointing out that it's not that the French have "magically" decided to have more alternatives, but that their electoral system has. Perhaps Justin has come across the famous "Duverger's law" at some point. It argues simply that FPTP (first-past-the-post or "plurality") electoral systems (like in the US & UK) tend to produce two-party systems, while PR (proportional representation) electoral systems (like the kind used in France & other parliamentary systems) tend to produce multiparty systems. So it's not the French who have decided to have multiple ideological alternatives, it's their electoral system.

Indeed, my pedantic friend, I agree with much of the institutionalist analysis here. "The French" is obviously shorthand for the entire panoply of institutions, ideas and social structures characteristic of the country and its history. And neither do institutions just "magically" appear, Miguel. They are typically the product of the balance of social and political power at the time of their creation.

But the point isn't about where France's political alternatives emerge from. The point is that the mere existence of such alternatives makes France more democratic than the United States in my eyes.

Following, that perhaps Justin might remember that the 2007 French election pitted Sarkozy (center-right) against Royal (center-left) in a presidential runoff. But most polls suggested that had Bayrou (center) placed second, he would have beaten either Sarkozy or Royal. Since Sarkozy won, the evidence suggests that despite the French preference for center or center-left candidates, they tend to end up w/ center-right ones. Seems like a stacked deck to me. Perhaps a reason for a low Polity score?

A similar argument could be made about the United States and its parties' nomination processes. For example, there's been analysis suggesting that Al Gore would have faired better than Dukakis against Bush Sr. in the '88 election if he'd been able to win his party's nomination.

We can say similar things about the Republican side. Historically, McCain has had great appeal among swing voters. He probably would have been more formidable than George W. in a two-way race against either Gore or Kerry. Nevertheless, he has difficulty winning his party's nomination.

But somehow, according to Miguel, we're talking about a "stacked deck" in France but not one here. Well, don't even get me started about "stacked decks." If we really wanna talk about "stacked decks," we'd have to go well beyond the electoral rules of the game to the question of who shapes public deliberation in the United States and how left candidates are systematically marginalized from public debate.

Moreover, politics isn't just made at the executive level. The fact that the French system provides more alternatives at the parliamentary level is just as important.

Up until the last two paragraphs, Justin almost sounds like a reasonable person. First time for everything, I suppose. But then he goes on to assume that anyone who disagrees w/ him on one minor poinst must be definition disagree w/ him on all others. How? By putting words in my mouth. Funny, I never argued against a stacked deck in US politics, but somehow "according to [me]" (or, rather, according to Justin's imaginary version of me) I do (funny, if you scroll up, you see that I also criticized the Bush-Clinton dynasties). Such a reductionist view of the universe! All that yummy pabulum. Yum, yum!

(Though I am interested to know what parliamentary "alternatives" actually exist in the French "strong presidential" model [seat representation is not the same as effective representation]. But now we're going far afield.)

I apologize (to my other readers) if I seem overly flippant towards Justin. But after a while, I just can't take him seriously (does anyone?). It has instead become one of the enjoyable moments of my day, when I can take a moment from the drugery of academic work to laugh. It's my very own "Chapulin Colorado" show.

Seems like a stacked deck to me. Perhaps a reason for a low Polity score?

Well, you explicitly implied here that France's so-called "stacked deck" could help explain why it has a lower polity score than the United States. What I'm saying is that the "stacked deck" doesn't distinguish it from the United States (which has characteristics of a "stacked deck" as well), so that can't logically account for the difference in the polity score.

I imagine you're right that France is scored lower because there are less formal constraints on the executive branch, but my personal view is that the availability of genuine ideological alternatives in the legislative sphere is more important than whatever difference exists in the level of constraint on executive power. Ultimately, any system that is more open to new parties at the legislative level will provide more options to the electorate in executive-level elections as well.

Personally, I think that it's just ludicrous that the United States has a perfect polity score.

Justin might not have noticed that Article 16 of the 1958 French constitution (the curent one) gives the president the power to declare states of emergency (which don't need parliamentary approval, unless they are extended beyond 12 days). This gives the president sweeping powers to "suspend" the constitution. The most recent state of emergency was declared in 2005 and lasted three months.

Justin might not have noticed that Article 16 of the 1958 French constitution (the curent one) gives the president the power to declare states of emergency (which don't need parliamentary approval, unless they are extended beyond 12 days). This gives the president sweeping powers to "suspend" the constitution. The most recent state of emergency was declared in 2005 and lasted three months.

And???

My point is that the lack of genuine ideological alternatives in the United States' political process is an even more serious problem and that it compromises our democratic character. When the front runners for the presidency are two corporate talking heads, it's little wonder that half the country doesn't even vote.

Now, maybe you don't see the glaring contradiction between the United States "perfect" polity score and the lack of ideological alternatives available to its electorate, but I do see this contradiction.

Maybe the American people don't like your "ideological alternative" Justin. Did you ever ask yourself that? Perhaps you can help lead us out of the darkness and develop our "revolutionary consciousness."

Maybe Justin could abandon his Quixote complex and realize that I've never argued that the US was a "perfect" democracy.

Or maybe Justin would notice that (consistent with "Duverger's law") the US party system is poorly disciplined, providing for a host of alternatives in the legislature. But that would require looking at the world in a more complex way than a "good v. evil" dichotomy. Time to put down the Counterpunch magazine, dude.

"Cantinflas!"

Or maybe Justin would notice that (consistent with "Duverger's law") the US party system is poorly disciplined, providing for a host of alternatives in the legislature.

Sure, provided that the United States had rules like Sweden's or Denmark's that provided opportunities for non-conventional candidates to actually participate in televised debates of the issues. Sure, provided that the United States had campaign finance laws similar to the rest of the first world. Sure, provided that the United States had run-off elections so that voters didn't feel compelled to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

But since we have none of that, you would have to be as blind as a bat to think we have an open political process. We don't. And that's one of the reasons that only half the country votes.

Yeah, that's probably the reason why less than 50% of Swiss voters turn out to vote. Oh, wait, it's not.

I don't mind Justin's general arguments (he does on occasion make intresting points). But I'm bothered by the endless sophomore-level (and apparently un-ironic) hyperbole. I expect more from my undergrad students!

The US is certainly not a perfect democracy. But neither are the European countries. Some of those "ideological alternatives" that such countries' electoral systems encourage include France's National Front, the Swiss Freedom Party, the Austrian Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Belang, the Dutch PVV & LPF, and a number of others.

Some of those "ideological alternatives" that such countries' electoral systems encourage include France's National Front, the Swiss Freedom Party, the Austrian Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Belang, the Dutch PVV & LPF, and a number of others.

Those electoral systems don't "encourage" anything. What they do is allow for a variety of parties and candidates to present their messages to the public so that the public can make up its own mind on the basis of what it sees and hears in this comparatively open process of public deliberation. That to me is democratic.

The American solution of having corporations decide which candidates are presentable to the public does not strike me as particularly democratic.

Justin clearly doesn't understand "Duverger's law." PR systems do encourage multiparty systems, because there is little incentive for "catch-all" parties, since even a small party will win seats roughly proportional to its votes. Plurality systems encourage two-party systems, because parties must come together to win votes (both GOP & Dems are "big tent" parties that involve numerous alliances). That's why the US has primary elections, which are rather open (in most PR-system countries, "internal" party elections are only open to card-carrying members, which resemble stockholders' meetings).

This simplistic, uncomparative, and cliché argument about "corporations" in American politics is tiring. Is there influence of money in politics? Yes. But that goes for PR systems, too. No one has denied that money doesn't play a role in politics. Pointing that out is neither controversial nor revolutionary (except if you've just discovered this, like my sophomores).

Many prefer PR, others prefer plurality systems. Neither is "more" democratic than the other. Both have their flaws. It depends on historical factors, the kind of social cleavages, etc. I personally tend to prefer plurality systems that use preferential voting (such as Australia's AV or Ireland's STV). But the representativeness that PR generates can, in many countries, reduce governability. Perhaps Justin will remember that presidentialism + PR is a deadly combination (though parliamentarism + PR works quite well, most of the time).

This simplistic, uncomparative, and cliché argument about "corporations" in American politics is tiring. Is there influence of money in politics? Yes. But that goes for PR systems, too. No one has denied that money doesn't play a role in politics. Pointing that out is neither controversial nor revolutionary (except if you've just discovered this, like my sophomores).

Uncomparative? Are you honestly going to try to tell me that corporate money doesn't play a larger role in U.S. politics than it does in Western European politics?

Get real, Miguel.

Miguel -

Israel tried a Presidential + PR system between 1996 and 2003. The results were very disappointing. The Knesset was already divided between 12 different parties, and making the Prime Minister separate from the Knesset just added to the division and lack of accountability for all involved.

Another major weakness of the PR system - in addition to the instability created by the number of parties created, it also lessens the accountability of individual parliamentarians, as all the parliamentarians represent all of the voters of the country, rather than one parliamentarian to one district, state, province, etc.

I'm surprised that Justin hasn't claimed that there are no corporations in Europe.

Since Justin provided no "context" for his statement, it read exactly like the kind of thing my freshmen & sophomores write in their short essays. I certainly cut them slack; I don't think the same goes for ABDs (particularly ones who pretentiously pronounce themselves "experts").

How do we know corporate money plays a larger role in US politics than in Western Europe? Justin made a claim. But w/o evidence, it's merely a claim. And after he deliberately burned his bridges & went out of his way to destroy any goodwill between us, why should I take Justin's claims at face value? He's given me no reason to trust him.

Justin made it clear that he expects significant presentations of evidence from others in arguments. I think it's fair that he hold up his end, too.

Frank:

Yes, PR systems tend to produce very strong, disciplined parties. This is good in the sense that voters have low information costs about what party labels stand for. But it does reduce the deliberative power of individual legislators. It was that kind of party system that led Roberto Michels' "iron law of oligarchy."

Even the "big names" in electoral engineering (Pippa Norris, Gary Cox, Matt Shugart, etc.) have made it perfectly clear that there is no "perfect" electoral system -- they all have benefits & negatives. The argument that a particular electoral system is "objectively" better comes from a **normative** preference for some theory of democracy over another (which makes the claim to an "objectively" better model problematic).

I wish the USA had a provision for a "no confidence vote" or something similar. Our current impeachment system ("for cause", only) is extremely cumbersome. And I'm not thinking of any one president as I write this - the past 40-44 years might have turned out very different had there been such a procedure.

Frank:

I agree. I've proposed such a system before.

How do we know corporate money plays a larger role in US politics than in Western Europe?

Because it's common knowledge, Miguel. It's not something you need a doctorate to figure out.

For example, in 1998, an article in the New York Times noted "the chasm that exists between America and Britain when it comes to money in politics" and contrasts Britain's comparatively lightly-funded political campaigns with the United States' "money-drenched campaigns."

Moreover, in the absence of laws providing more equal air time for candidates, corporations influence American politics in ways that extend well beyond campaign contributions. We leave it in the hands of a relatively small number of corporate news organizations to tell us which candidates merit our attention. Not surprisingly, Kucinich receives very little media attention and Edwards (whose semi-populist rhetoric frightens the establishment) is often dogged by the media on completely ridiculous grounds that he has a mansion.

The leverage we give big money in American politics has very deleterious effects on the quality of public deliberation about the issues. For any serious political scientist, the point is not even controversial.

Justin must have missed Kucinich's appearance on The Colbert Rerport (as well as his frequent mention there). He may also have missed the regular appearances of both candidates (Kucinich & Edwards) on the front page of The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and a host of other papers.

Put down the Counterpunch, dude!

I also enjoy a "serious" political scientist (since I'm apparently "not serious") using the Times to argue against me, rather than the mountains of APSR articles that would support his argument (though perhaps w/ a bit more "context" and "nuance"). I wonder if the UNM library has access to JSTOR?

For your information, I can't even remember the last time I read Counterpunch, but I would certainly encourage you to go there to wake yourself up and recognize that the world's politics is not one big fairy tale that a few classical theorists can sufficiently explain.

Justin must have missed Kucinich's appearance on The Colbert Rerport (as well as his frequent mention there). He may also have missed the regular appearances of both candidates (Kucinich & Edwards) on the front page of The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and a host of other papers.

Any idiot knows that you can't point to a simple appearance of a candidate here or there as an indication of a pattern in media coverage. To determine whether there are systematic biases in coverage of candidates, you analyze and compare a bunch of media content.

I also enjoy a "serious" political scientist (since I'm apparently "not serious") using the Times to argue against me, rather than the mountains of APSR articles that would support his argument (though perhaps w/ a bit more "context" and "nuance"). I wonder if the UNM library has access to JSTOR?

Oh, that's an interesting double standard, Miguel. You haven't pointed me to one scholarly piece except the classics (Duverger, Michels, etc.), but somehow I'm supposed to do your homework for you and point you to comparative scholarly analyses of campaign financing.

If you already know of "mountains of APSR articles that would support" my argument, why are you contesting the obvious?

What's really funny is that Justin seems to have skipped reading the second paragraph of the NY Times article to which he linked:

The case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was brought by a British anti-abortion campaigner to contest a law that restricted the amount of money ordinary citizens could spend to promote or attack the views of individual candidates. The abortion opponent, Phyllis Bowman, argued that the law violated the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees that ''everyone has the right to freedom of expression.'' The court agreed.

And I also note that the nine-year-old article does not mention any country in Europe other than the UK.

I wasn't contesting the "obviousness" of Justin's claim. I was pointing out the intellectual lazyness of the way he makes it.

The article also said this, Frank:

But supporters of an overhaul of American campaign finance laws noted that the European court -- unlike the Supreme Court -- seemed open to the idea of spending limits, just not ones as stringent as Britain's.

The fact that comparative analysis of different countries' campaign finance laws is not readily available to the American public just goes to show the extent to which the American establishment suppresses such information (just as they routinely suppress comparative analysis of the different first world countries' health care systems).

I was pointing out the intellectual lazyness of the way he makes it.

Well, I'd rather by lazy and right than pedantic and wrong.

Interesting. I thought that Justin cited an article from the New York Times, the most widely read paper in the USA. Or is the Times part of the nefarious conspiracy, too? But I'm just being pedantic & wrong -- which any lazy person will surely notice.

I thought that Justin cited an article from the New York Times, the most widely read paper in the USA. Or is the Times part of the nefarious conspiracy, too?

Actually, it's not the most widely read paper in the United States (as measured by circulation rates). The Wall Street Journal and USA Today beat it out.

But I'm not going to nitpick because the Times is indeed influential.

There's nothing conspiratorial about news corporations downplaying the news that raises questions about the role of corporations (which include their advertisers) within society. That's just a natural tendency of a profit-seeking entity that seeks to maintain its position within the social and economic hierarchy of American society. And the mere fact that you can OCCASIONALLY find information within corporate media that might raise a few questions about corporate power tells us little. The question that one needs to ask is this: In U.S. media, how salient are comparative analyses of different countries' campaign finance laws and health care systems? Aside from the short hoopla that Michael Moore's movie recently stirred, I hardly ever see comparative analysis in U.S. media of different countries' health care systems or campaign finance laws. I don't think one would have much difficulty showing that such comparative analyses are not salient at all in U.S. media.

Moreover, you also have to look at how the issues are framed. In the case of the New York Times article I linked to, it's interesting to note that the story is not principally framed as one about the United States' "money-drenched campaigns." Rather, it's framed as a story about the "human right" of a British anti-abortion activist to spend money in British political campaigns. You have to wade way down into the report to find the comparison of England's relatively lightly-funded campaigns to the United States' "money-drenched campaigns."

That's not an accident. Corporate media will quite naturally downplay news that raises questions about the role that corporations play in American society and politics.

Wait. Justin expects US newspapers to provide detailed, comparative analysis of campaign finance laws in other countries?

I wish the US media focused more of its attention on my pet issues. But it doesn't. That's why I look for "detailed, comparative analysis" in the trade journals, not the US media. I'm not completely naive.

I never said anything about "detailed" comparative analysis in U.S. media. Mere mention of some of the differences between our systems of health care and campaign finance and those of West European countries would probably suffice, but it's not going to happen to any significant degree because the U.S. establishment has a lot to hide. First things first, it needs to hide its overwhelming control over American society and politics.

the U.S. establishment has a lot to hide. First things first, it needs to hide its overwhelming control over American society and politics.

What exactly is this "establishment", Justin? And whom have they displaced from "controlling American society and politics"?

Maybe the average American isn't a political scientist & just doesn't care about comparative political analysis?

I've found the idea of a vast corporate conspiracy especially difficult to defend in the internet age. Plus, if it's such a conspiracy, why do so many people seem to know so much about it?

But, for the record, the NY Times, Washington Post and a host of other papers regularly run features on such issues. So do most magazines: Newsweek, Time, TNR, etc. I see stuff like that on the top of Google News frequently. I believe Justin runs a website devoted to merely re-posting such information. So who's hiding anything? And if so, they're doing a lousy job of it.

There's a weird psychology about conspiracy theories. Often, those who believe in them are self-aggrandizing. Why? Because if there's a vast conspiracy, and you are one of the select few who know about it, then you must be somehow "special" and/or "powerful" and the rest of the world is too blind and/or stupid to understand.

I tend to take the opposite approach: If something's so widely discussed that even I've heard about, then it must not be secret. Because I'm not very important person, and if even I've heard this "secret" then it's not much of a secret conspiracy.

Also, for the record: I'm starting to get just a little creeped out by Justin's cyber stalking. Am I that important that he has to waste his time coming to my website to bother me? I don't go to his website to bother him. There's something eerily obsessive (and unhinged) about all this. I would appreciate it if he could limit his visits to once or twice a day. That would be a little more, um, normal. I should be allowed to obsess about my website (because, well, it's my website). But obsessing about another person's little website is the kind of thing 13 year olds do, not ABDs.

Justin:
For what it's worth, a relation of mine is a friend of several members of the Board of the Carlyle Group.I'm sure that along with Dubya and Halliburton, they're one of your bete noirs. Lemme tell ya, there ain't no cabal running the US. They're not wringing their hands in delight trying to keep the proletariat down. 9-11 wasn't an inside job. Get off or on the meds, dude.

And since he mentioned Kucinich... I wonder if he could explain why the Evil Establishment Republicans voted to send Kucinich's impeachment bill to the floor of the House, while the Democrats (unsuccessfully) blocked it.

Am I that important that he has to waste his time coming to my website to bother me?

Listen, smart guy, if you don't want me to respond, don't make assinine suggestions that I engage in "conspiracy theories" because I don't.

Is it a "conspiracy" that General Motors' board of directors controls production and designs a product (cars) that are supposed to generate maximum profits? No, it's not a conspiracy at all. It's called business.

So why then is it somehow a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that news corporations that heavily depend on corporate advertising will systematically downplay news that raises questions about the role that corporations play in American society and politics? There's no "conspiracy" here at all. It is plainly in the interest of corporate media (and its corporate advertisers) to downplay news that raises questions about the role that corporations play in American society and politics.

Bartholomew Sparrow, a political scientist at UT-Austin, has written all about these issues in an excellent book entitled Uncertain Guardians: The News Media as a Political Institution. Sparrow (1999: 76) makes much the same argument that I do: "[P]ressures in the production of political news almost necessarily predispose news organizations to give favorable coverage to their own interests and those of corporate America and less favorable coverage to redistributive policies, pro-labor issues, and most political and economic reforms."