THE UNRESTRICTED, PUBLIC OPINION BASED
U.S. PARLIAMENT (1987-2011)
A proportional, multi-party, unicameral United States Parliament based on Pew Research Center's Political Typologies
(Read the full thing
here, complete with all of the legislation passed, the vote tallies, party descriptions gently edited from the original Pew Research typology descriptions, and a day in the life of the United States that would be created under these circumstances.)
Introduction
Political science wonks and hobbyists often lament the structure of the United States federal government, decrying the entire project for being crippled by idiosyncrasies that were designed to make the entire legislative process inefficient. The Congress is burdened by a Senate deliberately out of sync with the mood of the nation due to its staggered elections. It's also deliberately disproportionate, with sparsely populated states like Wyoming received the same amount of seats as California, and conventions like the filibuster make it impossible to pass any hotly contested piece of a partisan agenda because three-fifths of the body are needed to invoke cloture. This isn't even mentioning that the problems that the House of Representatives suffers from, including a First Past the Post system that forces one to not 'waste votes' on third parties, or Gerrymandering that delivers majorities that have more to do with how the maps were drawn than how voters decided, or the extremely low voter turnout related to the world's shortest term of office for an elected official in a national government. And what of the President, who is elected separately from the Congress and not accountable to them, leading to divided governments with competing agendas? And what should one make of the influence of the Supreme Court, which can strike down popular legislation with no institutional checks on this power, for good or ill?
This is not to say it would be intrinsically desirable to eliminate all of these checks on popular legislative power, but it makes one wonder: what if they were? What if there was no Senate, no First Past the Post, no Gerrymandering, nor longer terms of office? What if there was a united, parliamentary government that is supreme in its authority in place in the United States? To make this less of a fantasy and more of a reasoned thought experiment, real world polling data will be used to fill in the details of this more complex American political system. However, this requires more than just looking at whatever policy gains majority approval in the polls, as legislatures are composed of parties and elected officials, and this thought experiment is intended to emulate an unrestricted legislature, not a United States ruled by referendum.
Since 1987, the Pew Research Center has created a thorough report on different political groupings of Americans that transcend party lines called Political Typologies. The Political Typologies vary from year to year, but they always offer a more comprehensive look at the range of the ideologies in the United States. For this thought experiment, they shall be used as the basis for political parties in elections that use a national proportional representation system like the Netherlands and Israel. Using multi-member districts that correspond to U.S. States would have been more realistic, but the data simply isn't available to do so. With the polling information we have however, a compelling portrait of a different America shaped by an unrestricted United States Parliament emerges.
Methodology
The voting age population was taken from relevant census data and extrapolated for off-years. Voter turnout for each election corresponds roughly to voter registration, with decreases and increases therein reflection of similar trends in U.S. presidential elections. However, they do not precisely reflect any real world data set, and are only there for verisimilitude. The total number of seats also holds no special significance, and was an aesthetic choice. The simulated elections occur on the years that the Pew Research Center conducted their Political Typology reports, and are under conditions that would only make sense if they occurred in the context of our reality. Furthermore, the shifting nature of the Political Typologies required authorial judgment in matching certain Typologies to each other through time, and they do not reflect any research on part of the Pew Research Center to link them together. In fact, at some points the Pew Research Center found certain political typologies to be linked when there ideological differences seemed to undermine that connection e.g. the socially tolerant, fiscally conservative Enterprisers of 1987 had much more in common with the socially tolerant, fiscally conservative Libertarians of 1994 than the group labeled 'Enterprisers' in 1994 and beyond, which exhibited a hitherto unseen fusion of fiscal and social conservatism.
Each year, the Pew Research Center also calculated a group they labeled 'Bystanders' that made up exactly 0% of likely voters in 1987 and registered voters from 1994 to 2011, which were characterized by their political apathy. They were thus excluded from the vote shares for each simulated party, which reflect percentages of likely or registered voters as opposed to percentages of the adult population. This can very rarely lead to legislation contrary to overall public opinion for adults that took into consideration the views of Bystanders. This is intentional however, as again, this is a project to simulate an unrestrained Parliament and not a nation-by-referendum.
The parties that make up the Government and the Opposition also have little to do with their traditional affiliation with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Instead, they're based on which parties have enough in common to pass a substantive legislative agenda without a single party having a majority of its members opposed to any part of the coalition agreement. Key pieces of legislation are often missing from the coalition agreements because they relied upon votes from parties outside of the government, which is intentional.
As noted before each legislative section, the order in which the parties are presented is by the percent of Aye votes given in favor of it. The party that introduces the legislation is the one with the highest percent of approval for that policy. For those opposing the legislation, the parties are presented in the order that they disapprove, or in the order of least approval. Responses that were neither approving or disapproving were counted as votes against because they were not equivalent to affirmation, or an Aye vote, and because Pew Research Center neglected to differentiate 'No' and 'Don't Know/Refused to Answer' responses in surveys such as the one conducted in 1987. Each legislation has a tally of Ayes except for the 1987 budget increasing domestic spending, as all parties in that simulated government correspond to political typologies that were broadly in favor of each item-by-item, but with no aggregate tally that could be used.
The specifics for certain legislation were minimally interpolated, with specifics – such as in the minimal sentencing policy in 1999 – provided through reference to the actual questions asked. Other interpolations, such as those for the national healthcare bill in 2005, were taken from the Pew Research Center's own description of these policies e.g. defining it with terms like 'universal healthcare'. The most heavily interpolated piece of legislation was the tax cuts in 2005, as advocacy for the wealthy to have their tax cuts expire while making the middle class tax cuts permanent, and support for all of the tax cuts across the board, was interpreted as support for a compromise legislation with permanent tax cuts for the middle class and temporary tax cuts for the wealthy. The provision to prevent schools from firing teachers because they're gay or lesbian was also interpolated as a reasonable extension of what those in favor of gay and lesbian people serving in the military would support. Similarly, interracial marriage was used as a stand-in for interracial dating in the 1987 parliament.
Finally, and most importantly, the descriptions for each party is a lightly edited version of those provided for their corresponding Political Typologies, which were written by researchers at the Pew Research Center. These works were released without copyright notice and not used for commercial purposes, but the author of this piece did not write the political descriptions in full, and the credit for that goes to the Pew Research Center, as does all of the polling data gathered. Their information was not only invaluable for the completion of this project, but the foundation of it.
Electoral System: Proportional Representation with seats allocated by modified D'Hondt method, shifting election threshold. Parties nationally polled below the threshold are not granted ballot access.
The Liberal-National Alliance is an electoral alliance between the Liberal Party and the National Party, in order to better favor their chances in attaining remainder seats and in light of their shared political goals. The number of candidates each of the respective parties within the Liberal-National Alliance receives is determined by which of their respective candidates are ranked high enough to attain seats by voters, with each party separately endorsing their own candidates.
1987 Coalition Agreement
The 1987 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the the the Liberal-National Alliance, the New Deal Coalition, the Protestant People's Party and the Movement for Peace, shall:
- Enact a Minimal Guarantees program to ensure that every citizen has enough to eat and a place to sleep;
- Increase spending on programs for the elderly, Social Security, the nation's health care, farmer's aid, AIDS research, and reducing drug addiction;
- Ensure that space shall not be weaponized, nor the Contras funded by the government.
- Condemn Communism, a totalitarian ideology incompatible with our principles and values as a people and a republic;
- Allow public school teachers to lead their class in prayer, to ensure that our children are given a moral education.
Left Opposition Statements
- The Civil Rights Congress and the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress are opposed to the government because the coalition refuses to increase spending on unemployment programs and consent to the creation of a minority assistance program.
- The Radical Party is opposed to the government because school prayer is contrary to the separation of church and state that our republic has traditionally cherished.
Right Opposition Statements
- The Libertarian Party is opposed to all of the wasteful spending increases on big government programs.
The Movement for Peace and the Camelot Party failed to qualify for any seats due to decreased interest in their dovish causes with the end of the Cold War; their voters primarily went to the Liberal-National Alliance, the Radical Party, and the Civil Rights Congress. As before, the number of candidates each of the respective parties within the Liberal-National Alliance receives is determined by which of their respective candidates are ranked high enough to attain seats by voters.
1994 Coalition Agreement
The 1994 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the Liberal-National Alliance, the Protestant People's Party, the Radical Party, the Civil Rights Congress, and the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress, shall:
- Create an employer mandate to require businesses to provide their workers health insurance
- Enact the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), to strengthen our global competitiveness and open up opportunities for new prosperity;
- Establish a Workers Assistance Program for education and job training for any displaced workers;
- Reduce capital gains taxes to encourage investment in American businesses while refusing to increase income taxes to mitigate the deficit;
- Impose a two-year limit on participation in welfare, to ensure that no one is abusing our generosity;
- Exclude all illegal immigrants from benefiting from federal programs that are intended to benefit our citizens;
- Restrict the sale of handguns to improve public safety and ban smoking in public places to mitigate the deleterious health effects of secondhand smoke;
- Ensure that there are no perpetual incumbents by imposing a consecutive two-term limit on all Members of Parliament.
Left Opposition Statements
- The New Deal Coalition is opposed to NAFTA, which hurts American workers by encouraging outsourcing and driving down wages; the ban on smoking in public places is also unwelcome.
Right Opposition Statements
- The Conservative Party opposes the healthcare program and its employer mandate, which will hurt economic growth and increase unemployment by making it harder for job creators to hire, and the gun control bill.
- The Libertarian Party is opposed to the healthcare reform bill because it requires an increasingly large government with extraordinary powers.
The Radical Party, the Movement for Peace and the Camelot Party joined to form the Social Democratic Party, primarily in opposition to the Liberal-National Alliance's support for NAFTA, and the fiscally conservative agenda enacted after 1994 general election. The Independent National Party was founded by Nationals dissatisfied with sharing a party list with the Liberal Party despite being similar ideologically. The Libertarian Party failed to qualify for any seats due to the raised pre-election polling threshold, and they had previously received just 4.5% of the vote.
1999 Coalition Agreement
The 1999 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the Liberal-National Alliance, the New Deal Coalition, the Independent National Party, and the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress, shall:
- Increase the minimum wage, to ensure that the paychecks of our workers keep up with rising price of living;
- Hold insurance companies accountable by allowing patients to sue them when necessary
- Make sure that minors are making an informed decision when they choose to have an abortion by requiring parental consent;
- Provide greater freedom for parents to give their children a quality education by providing federal funds for school vouchers
- End unlimited campaign contributions by prohibiting soft money contributions;
- Stabilize the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo by sending American peacekeepers.
Right Opposition Statements
- The Conservative Party is opposed to a minimum wage increase, which will kill jobs by making it more costly for employers to hire, and does not see involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo as beneficial to American interests.
- The Protestant People's Party sees no grounds to send our soldiers to foreign soil without a pressing threat to national security.
Left Opposition Statements
- The Civil Rights Congress is opposed to restricting the freedom of speech of labor unions by limiting their ability to finance political candidates.
- The Social Democratic Party cannot fully support the school voucher program, which takes money out of public schools and gives it to the privileged like a reverse Robin Hood.
9/11 changed the political landscape considerably, firstly by encouraging the creation of the Freedom Party, a populist, self-described opponent of radical Islam. The right-wing parties clamored for war with Iraq, causing the Liberal-National Alliance to rupture, as the Liberal Party opposed it and the National Party supported it. The Independent National Party became the new home of all National Party Members of Parliament, and thus they dropped the distinguishing qualifier to reflect this. At the same time, the Liberal Party resolved to form a new electoral alliance with the Social Democratic Party, which shared many of their policies and overlapped considerably with their electorate. Unlike the Liberal-National Alliance, the Social Democrats insisted on unified endorsement of all candidates as a condition for sharing a list. The Libertarian Party still failed to clear the election threshold, and thus did not attain any seats. Finally, the Protestant People's Party renamed itself the Christian People's Party to appeal to Catholic minority voters as a means to grow the party.
2005 Coalition Agreement
The 2005 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the Social Democratic-Liberal Alliance, the Civil Rights Congress, the New Deal Coalition, and the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress, shall:
- Ensure that every worker is paid better by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $6.45 per hour;
- Discourage outsourcing by penalizing businesses that want to ship our jobs overseas;
- Establish the Minority Assistance Program (MAP) to help racial minorities, women, and others similarly disadvantaged receive education and employment;
- Ensure that the government guarantees health insurance for all citizens;
- Permanently reduce the tax burden of the middle class and the needy while temporarily cutting them for the wealthy;
- Prevent the United States from being involved in a ruinous war with Iraq;
- Maintain access to all family planning resources for women, including contraception and abortion
- Oppose any attempt to spy on our citizens and infringe upon their liberties.
Right Opposition Statements
- The Freedom Party welcomes the mostly prudent fiscal policies of the government but condemns the reverse racism on display with the MAP, and opposes their weak response to the threat of radical Islam to the American people by refusing to enact the PATRIOT Act and go to war with Iraq.
- The National Party embraces nearly all aspects of the government platform, but urges the creation of private accounts for Social Security and war with Iraq along with all of the opposition parties.
- The Conservative Party opposes the socialist government, which leaves us vulnerable to terrorists and threatens to run this country into the ground with ill-conceived nanny state policies.
- The Christian People's Party urgently calls for war with Iraq before they develop nuclear weapons, and to reform Social Security by creating private accounts.
This election was heavily influenced by the previous government's successful handling of the Great Recession, reversing unemployment and encouraging GDP growth. It was likewise affected by war weariness in Afghanistan, with the Freedom Party's zest for crusades against radical Islam falling so far out of favor that it didn't qualify for any seats. The same trend helped boost the Libertarian Party, with a decidedly more Dovish bent than in 1987, over the election threshold for the first time since 1994. The Christian People's Party also almost completely peeled off the fiscally leftist, socially conservative base from the Southern Christian Civil Rights Congress, preventing them from meeting the pre-election polling threshold. Finally, concerns about a ballooning budget deficit brought the austerity-focused, generally center-left Progressive Party into being on the backs of new, young voters.
2011 Coalition Agreement
The 2011 Coalition Agreement affirms that the government, composed of the Social Democratic-Liberal Alliance, the Civil Rights Congress, the Progressive Party, the National Party, the New Deal Coalition, and the Christian People's Party, shall:
- Ensure that our borders are secure through more rigorous enforcement of our laws against illegal immigration while allowing those who are already here to become citizens if they pay fines, have a job, and pass a background check;
- Bolster our energy independence through investing in alternative energy sources;
- Protect the successful universal healthcare program that millions of families rely upon.
Right Opposition Statements
- The Conservative Party cannot support amnesty, a plan for energy independence without investment in domestic oil production, and the continuation of the disastrous healthcare reform act.
- The Libertarian Party welcomes the immigration reform, but believes that development of alternative energies and healthcare are the domain of the free market.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...h-typologies-as-parties.374401/#post-11650245