The election trifecta
Our political marketplace is falling far short of the sort of “free market” ideals that have long guided American economic policymaking.
Kevin Frazier grew up in Washington County, attended the University of Oregon, and worked for Children First for Oregon. He edits The Oregon Way between Zoom classes at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
Not buying what they’re selling
Duopoly
The market condition when there are only two sellers.
Market failure
The economic situation defined by an inefficient distribution of goods and services. In market failure, the individual incentives for rational behavior do not lead to rational outcomes for the group.
********************************************************************
Duopoly isn’t a word most folks use in day-to-day conversation. Maybe you’ve used it in Scrabble (13 points) or to think about the soda industry (Pepsi v. Coke). But it’s unlikely you’ve ever applied the word to our political marketplace. Thankfully, Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter did in their paper, Why Competition in the Politics Industry is Failing America.
Turns out our political marketplace is falling far short of the sort of “free market” ideals that have long guided American economic policymaking. Those failures have to do with how the market is structured: it’s a duopoly.
Q: If it’s a duopoly, who are the two sellers?
A: The Democratic and Republican parties.
And, just like Pepsi and Coke, this is exactly how the two parties like it. According to Gehl and Porter, “The political system isn’t broken. It’s doing what it is designed to do.” The system is designed not for outcomes that benefit the group (me, you, Oregonians), but instead for the parties themselves and the rest of the Political Industrial Complex, as coined by the authors.
Party affiliation aside, that should strike you as a problem.
Gehl and Porter point out that this analysis is not political. In other words, “The problem is not Democrats or Republicans.” The problem is:
the nature of the political competition that the current duopoly has created, their failure to deliver solutions that work, and the artificial barriers that are preventing new competition that might better serve the public interest.
The end result of this competition is clearly not consumer (voter) wellbeing. Trust in our democracy is fading. Approval ratings for elected officials have plummeted. And, the legitimacy of several democratic institutions has been questioned.
Oregonians want Coke
(but should be offered Pepsi or Dr. Pepper, too)
These issues are even more apparent in Oregon, where the artificial barriers are preserving a seller that no one is buying.
Imagine if the government intervened and decided that Pepsi and Dr. Pepper (not Coke) were the two sodas that should receive prioritized distribution to restaurants. Americans would be livid. People simply don’t view Dr. Pepper as an adequate substitute for Coke or Pepsi.
Surely some sort of Boston Soda Party would occur and the government would realize that it shouldn’t be in the soda industry. Everyone would win: restaurants would be free to pick their own soda and the soda industry would benefit from improved competition.
Now, imagine if a state government subsidized primaries for two parties, one of which was statistically unpopular, while voters simply asked for the chance to pick from all the options.
You can stop imagining because that’s our reality. In Oregon’s closed primary system, the State is propping up two parties, despite a clear change in voter preferences.
Our Pepsi — the Democrats — account for +/- 34.5% of registered voters; they get their own primary.
Our Dr. Pepper — the Republicans — account for +/- 24.88% of registered voters; they also get their own primary.
Our Coke — non-affiliated and third party voters — account for +/- 40.62% of registered voters; they only get to pick from the sodas that the other voters have selected.
There may have been a time when Dr. Pepper…er…Republicans…was as popular as Coke, but that time has passed. Yet, antiquated barriers still prevent Oregonians from their right to select their soda/candidate without state interference.
Ending the Political Industrial Complex
Gehl and Porter set forth the “Electoral Trifecta” to break the duopoly and improve competition. It’s likely that Oregonians will have a chance to go three for three in implementing these policies come 2022. So, what is this trifecta?
Non-partisan, single-ballot primaries (a form of an open primary)
Ranked-choice voting
Non-partisan redistricting
In other words, Gehl and Porter want to make sure that electoral districts aren’t drawn for Republicans or Democrats, but rather around communities; they want to empower voters to select “dark horse” candidates without feeling like they wasted their vote, which is possible in a ranked-choice system; and, finally, they want voters to have the right to select from all candidates.
Efforts are already underway to place these reforms on the ballot. The goal isn’t to help Democrats or Republicans, but rather to make voters the key actors in the market; after all, that’s the whole point of a democracy, right?
*****************************************************
Send feedback to Kevin:
@kevintfrazier
Keep the conversation going:
Facebook (facebook.com/oregonway), Twitter (@the_oregon_way)
Check out our podcast:
#91