EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnMichael WashburnrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O./. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Jacob Neusner,rnJohn Shelton Reed, Momcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute,rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopyright © 1995 bvThe Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $28 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicler arc thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarilv reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. L^nsolicitcd manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol. 19, No. 2 Ftbriuir> IWirnI’rintcd m tlic I Initcd Sf-ato of AIIILTH;;IrnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn the Electoral Process Richard Winger Replies:rn”The Impotent American Voter” byrnRichard Winger and some related essaysrnin the November 1994 issue—such asrnJeffrey Tucker’s on the third-party optionrn—are seriously wrong. 1 would haternto see Chronicles get a reputation for politicalrnkookiness based on a poor understandingrnof American politics.rnWinger confuses political opennessrnwith openness to third parties. One ofrnthe reasons why third parties have fallenrninto marginality is that the two majorrnparties are so permeable to significantrnnew social forces. Their very organization,rnincorporated into state law, makesrnthem highly vulnerable to new politicalrnimpulses. Whether you are an environmentalistrnor a religious fundamentalist,rngetting a piece of the party action is relativelyrnsimple—perhaps too simple. Yourncan offer your candidates in the primary,rncreate a parallel organization, or run forrnparty office. This happens all the time,rnand is responsible for both major partiesrnbeing incoherent coalitions rather thanrnEuropean-style cadre parties with welldefinedrnviews. The “Golden Era” ofrnAmerican third parties was effectivelyrndestroyed by the primarv system—whyrncampaign as a Socialist in the winnertake-rnall system when vou can capturernthe Democratic Party in the primary?rnThe minor parties of old are now part ofrnthe major parties to the extent that theyrnrepresent a significant electoral interest.rnWhat Winger seems to be dreamingrnof is a system of multiparty proportionalrnrepresentation. This would, in short, berna disaster for America, producing a politicsrnof passion and divisivencss. Forcingrnideological differences into two partiesrndoes produce an inelegant mushiness,rnbut there is much to recommend thisrn”muddling along” in a nation with manyrndeep political divisions. The left hasrnlong been interested in a multiparty system,rngiven its infatuation with ideologicalrnpurity, but why would Chronicles,rnwith its distaste for “multiculturalism”rnand other group-based partitions of civicrnlife, look so kindly on such a scheme?rn—Robert WeisshergrnDepartment of Political SciencernUniversity of IllinoisrnUrbana, ILrnWhat I discussed in my article is a returnrnto the U.S. ballot access laws of thern1910’s and 1920’s. I was not and amrnnot advocating proportional representation.rnDuring the 1910’s, five parties werernrepresented in Congress and in manyrnstate legislatures: Democrats, Republicans,rnSocialists, Progressives, and Prohibitionists.rnThis was good for the country,rnbecause dissident political minoritiesrnfelt that at least they had a spokesman inrnCongress and in state legislatures. SurelyrnProfessor Weissberg wouldn’t arguernthat American politics during the 1910’srnwere a “disaster.”rnThe decline of third parties in thernUnited States was caused by the start ofrnprimaries. However, the system isn’t asrnopen to that technique as he seems tornthink. State Democratic and Republicanrnconventions, not primaries, choosernnominees outright (if they wish) in Virginia;rnand no one may run in primariesrnwithout first gaining substantial supportrnat a state party convention in Utah, Massachusetts,rnConnecticut, and SouthrnDakota. This trend is strengthening.rnLast year the Hawaii State SupremernCourt said that a party may preventrnsomeone from running in its own primaryrnif the major party leadership doesrnnot think the candidate is a bona fidernsupporter of the party. Courts in Alabamarnand Georgia have ruled that thernDemocratic Party may exclude LyndonrnLaRouehe supporters from Democraticrnprimary ballots. The Supreme Courtrnhas consistenth said that political partiesrnhave a First Amendment right to runrntheir primaries as they see fit, and if thernmajor parties choose to exclude outsiders,rnthey can legally do so. And don’trnforget that when Pat Buchanan tried tornrun against President Bush in the 1992rnRepublican presidential primaries, hernwas kept off the ballot in New York,rnSouth Dakota, and Kentucky.rnJeffrey Tucker Replies:rnHere is one “group-based partition” wernneed: between taxpayers and would-berntaxeaters. The primary contribution ofrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn