Good Afternoon, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I understand and agree with you
on plurality and two-party dominion, and their off-shoots,
gerrymandering and the various forms of corruption. The difference
between our views seems to be the focus on finding a 'better way' to
count votes when (in my opinion) the real problems are the 'who' and the
'what' we vote for. Until we enable the people, themselves, to select
who and what they will vote for, changing the way the votes are counted
is an exercise in futility.
Although you didn't specifically say so, I take it you do not consider
the political duopoly "right". Neither do I. But neither do I see
wisdom in fragmentation ... replacing the duopoly with a multitude of
smaller factions ... because it bypasses the vital step of studying the
nature of partisanship and how it came to dominate politics, right here
in the birthplace of 'The Noble Experiment':
"When the Founders of the American Republic wrote the U.S.
Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for
political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they
sought through various constitutional arrangements such as
separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and
indirect election of the president by an electoral college to
insulate the new republic from political parties and factions."
Professor John F. Bibby[1]
Even so, a 'party system' developed in the United States because our
early leaders, through ego and to protect their own interest, used their
standing to consolidate their power. Politicians in a position to do so
institutionalized their advantage by forming political parties and
creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation:
"The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the
modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty,
newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers,
candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across
state lines, and patronage."[2]
These features advance party interest at the expense of the public
interest. They show how political parties are an embodiment of human
nature; they put self-interest above all other considerations. They
function precisely as a thoughtful person would expect them to function.
Political parties are grounded in partisanship. Partisanship is natural
for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our
views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the
knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives
breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship
is not only inevitable, it is healthy.
However, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think
differently, often without considering the salient parts of opposing
points of view. They seek the power to impose their views on those who
don't share them, while overlooking their own shortcomings. Communism
and National Socialism showed these tendencies. Both had features that
attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both
degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained
control of their governments.
The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they
attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of
government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it gives voice to
our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies,
whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National
Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose
their biases on the public.
As close as I can tell, the discussion of methods assumes the existing
political system, a system based on partisanship, is adequately
democratic; that all that's necessary is a little tweaking. That facile
assumption begs careful examination.
For one thing, while the lack of participation that characterizes modern
politics is often attributed to the many distractions of modern life,
how many people recognize that public involvement in political affairs
is adversely affected by the confrontational nature of partisanship? In
all conflicts, from sports and games to politics and war, the
significance of a contention is greatest for the proponents. It
diminishes as the distance from the seat of the conflict grows.
Partisan politics puts most people on the periphery, remote from the
process. As outsiders, they are disinclined to participate.
Politicians mask this indifference by creating 'hot buttons' that
inspire emotional responses, but this is at the expense of the kind of
deliberative contemplation required for healthy political debate.
Adversarial relationships are the antithesis of deliberative relationships.
Another harmful aspect of partisanship is that it subjugates the
individual to the party. We laud those who, by their intellect, their
courage, and their commitment, contributed to advances in civilization.
The distribution of such people among the populace is no less now than
it ever was, but aversion to non-conformance inhibits our ability to
recognize them.
While people have a tendency to align themselves with others who think
(more or less) as they do, it is rare that partisans are in complete
agreement on all points of partisan interest. That is because there is
an enormous difference between THINKING something and SAYING that same
thing. Our thoughts are modified by little qualifiers. People who
agree with seeking a goal of equality (for example) often mentally
assume the right will be withheld from those deemed unworthy, but seldom
define what, precisely, constitutes unworthiness.
When we prepare to put thoughts into words, we review our mental
qualifiers. If they are substantial, we hold our tongue. If we think
them insubstantial, we ignore them and express the thought. This allows
others to help mold our ideas for greater clarity and impact. The
difference between holding an opinion and discussing that opinion openly
is significant. Dr. MacIntyre (cited previously) put his finger on the
difference and described how the entire community ... our society ...
would benefit if all the people were allowed to participate in the
political process.
Politics ought not be about correcting wrongs or empowering segments of
society. That is looking backward. Politics should be about the
present and the future. It should be about applying reason to problems
as they exist and when they arise. The first step in reaching that goal
is to devise a method of finding the best of our people as our leaders.
Fred
References:
[1] http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/parties.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Republican_Party_(United_States)
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
