Matt Yglesias

17 Responses to “Blame the Threshold, Not the PR”

1. P Snowden Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm

   Why do you support making the Israeli electoral system less democratic?

2. Opie Curious Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm

   Pseudonymous in nc, in comments on the original post, made the exact same point. It was the second comment. You didn’t have to read very far.

   Then SLC said it in #4, and then NYC Charles agreed in #5. I’m not usually a “Read your comments, jerk!” sympathizer, but in this case, you’re really not giving the commenters enough credit.

3. KCinDC Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm

   Opie, why would you think Matt’s going to read your comment?

4. SLC Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm

   Re Opie

   It’s well known that Mr. Yglesias doesn’t read the comments on his blog. Actually, I find them far more entertaining and informative then his original posts, which probably accounts for his ignoring them.

5. lfv Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm

   Really, the problem in Israeli politics is that tiny parties can pick up a seat or two? That’s why we have Netanyahu/Lieberman types winning?

   I wasn’t aware Kadima or whoever was about to form a coalition until some party won 1 seat, thus swining it to the uber hawk racists.

6. pseudonymous in nc Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm

   Thanks, Opie C.

   Matt? Either turn off the fucking comments or post at a rate that allows you to read them. Christ on a fucking pogo stick.

   Why do you support making the Israeli electoral system less democratic?

   Logic FAIL.

7. KCinDC Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm

   Matt does extremely rarely wade into the comments, with that mustard-colored background, but I don’t know what prompts those visits. Normally he doesn’t even bother to look at the post itself after hitting the “post” button, since even the most glaring errors in formatting remain uncorrected (not to mention the too-frequent errors where he writes the opposite of what he means or otherwise renders his argument difficult to follow). I’m going to demand a refund of my blog subscription.

8. SLC Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm

   Re PSnowden

   Why do you support making the Israeli electoral system less democratic?

   Because the system in Israel is too democratic. They have too many nutcases, like our own Glenn Beck, who actually have Knesset seats.

9. Davis X. Machina Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm

   In the US Senate, the party threshold is set even lower.

   In the Senate there are as many different parties as there are senators who look in the mirror each morning and say “Good morning, Mr. (or Mme.) President” to their reflections.

   Which is how you get Evan Bayh.

   Our upper house is as least as dysfunctional as the Israeli Knesset — I would maintain more so — since it has, in practice, far more parties, and no tradition of coalition governent.

10. Dave L Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Since when is a low threshold synonymous with “more democratic”? Unless you suppose that unstable, seven-party coalitions somehow do a better job of reflecting the popular will than smaller, more coherent governments do. I’d almost prefer government by referendum – it’d be lousy government, but it would be more genuinely democratic.

    Actually, I think the Knesset used to have a 1% threshold, which meant that there were usually 15 or more parties represented in a 120-seat body.

11. Danny Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Probably a good idea, but on the whole it’s too late. It would have a had positive impact in the 80s when the 2 parties shared 2/3 of the seats, but since then the political system has fragmented completely and you have lots of middle-sized parties that would pass the threshold (assuming you don’t put it ridiculously high). Raising the threshold now would simply create stronger middle-sized parties, it would not increase the stability of the system as a whole.

    You may glad to know that the threshold used to be 1%, it was then raised to 1.5%, and now its at 2%.

12. MBunge Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    Shorter MattY – “My beloved parliamentary system DOES SO work, just as long as it has the same sort of arbitrary limitations as the American approach to government.”

    Mike

13. pseudonymous in nc Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    To fill out SLC’s point, the aim in creating thresholds is to ensure that proportionality also applies to the influence of parties on the governing coalition. Or, to put it another way, that there’s a degree of proportionality in the concessions and benefits necessary for them to participate.

    The real issue is an incredible fragmentation and instability in the party structure. Don’t like your party’s leaders? Instead of trying to replace them, form another party!

14. strings Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    The practical effect of this may be to disenfranchise the Arabs
    as they are divided in several parties that each get only a few percent.

    Of course, the Arabs might react by consolidating to one larger party. Perhaps that would be better.

15. daveNYC Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Of course the various parties would react by consolidation or other means. I’m just not sure if the current nature of Israeli politics would change that much. If Shas doesn’t think they’ll make the cut, and then join their list with, say, Likud in exchange for the housing and education/interior (not sure what ones they always want) ministries, is that really that much different from the current situation where they join coalition X in return for those same cash cows?

    It might be nice to ditch a really small nutjob party, but right now I think the bigger problem is that Lieberman came in a strong third by running on an Arab citizens are a potential fifth column platform.

16. Richard Blanco Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    The real issue is an incredible fragmentation and instability in the party structure. Don’t like your party’s leaders? Instead of trying to replace them, form another party!

    Or, it could be interpreted as there being too much stability in party structure. Israel has very strong political parties. Many of the parties provide electoral lists that are decided in a closed system, without the aid of primaries. If you fail to support the party in some big votes, you are automatically kicked out of the party. To move through the ranks you need a patron who is himself from the old guard. Personal popularity doesn’t do much.

    Under such a circumstance, if you’re unhappy with the party’s platform, it makes more sense to leave the party and hope that you have enough popularity to reach the measly 2% threshold.

17. Deeds Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Israel’s democratic system is barely functional. When I thank the stars that we don’t use a parliamentary system, Israel is Exhibit A.