2 Comments
author

Absolutely, thanks for adding that nuance! That's what I meant by shifting coalitions and strange bedfellows, but I like how clearly you laid it out. Likewise, I didn't even have space to mention that the majority may just make a habit of negotiating directly with minority interest groups before consequential decisions to make sure they have the votes. That may look like consensus to voters when it's really coalition-building behind the scenes, or logrolling, if you will ;-). And of course STV governments can run on consensus too on a lot of issues that don't divide their voters.

Expand full comment

Governance entails a third approach besides "finding common ground on as many issues as they can"..."and forming competing coalitions for the rest." These two approaches assume that governance means parties must either share interests, meaning they have the same priorities, or governance is a zero-sum game where only one coalition's priorities prevail. The third option builds on having diverse interests with different priorities, which the new electoral structure intends to create. A colloquial term for this form of governance is "log rolling." That means, I'll support your highest priority if you support my highest priority, the highest priorities of the parties being different. If one district in the City is keen to have sidewalks, better street lighting, and fewer accidents on its streets, while another district is keen to have more economic development, cultural amenities, and taller buildings, they have the basis for a deal that benefits them both and possibly the City at large. Indeed, if the City has diversity in its neighborhoods reflected in diversity on the City Council, this might become the approach to governance that we observe the most.

Expand full comment