> >1Would you rather have dictatorship, or "indecisiveness"
>
I rather won't have dictatorship, nothing guaranties that
a "firm" decision is the right decision.
> >2If three parties have, say, 42%, 35%, and 23% of the popular vote (or
> >make up your own numbers), which is more fair:
>
the point is, that voting doesn't concern anymore
a distinguishing between different political solutions offered.
All parties offer the same "pragmatism" that boils down at best
at promising a more "human faced" or a more "free market"
capitalism and in fact one not doing anything markedly
different, when in power, than the other - they are doing what
those controlling the economy dictate.
This make the electorate feel as powerless
and unimportant as in practice they are, thus
apathy and contempt results follows from both ends.
Parties should implement their promises and if the electorate
is unsatidfied, they should call back those representatives,
whenever they feel like, not only in every 4/5 years.
Which goes a long way towards bottom-up direct democracy,
as suggested.
Eva
> >athat one party have a virtual dictatorship?
> >bthat the 42% party should form a coalition with the party of its choice,
> >and govern in some kind of a compromise?
> >cother (I personally prefer "other", which would include Direct Democracy,
> >but will reserve further comment till I hear from others)
>
> >What do YOU think??
>
> So much talk about political parties and representation and fairness. But:
>
> - what political party is democratic internally?
>
> - what political party would not sell its soul, and its principles such as
> they may be, to win "power"?
>
> - what political party is not beholden to its big time monetary contributors?
>
> - what political party exists for any purpose beyond winning election?
>
> - what political party will take a vote losing stand on any issue or
> principle?
>
> Which leads to:
>
> - who would want a political party representing them?
>
> - who would propose entrenching such shallow and profoundly corrupt
> institutions at the heart of the democratic process - the vote?
>
> I personally do not believe that fairness, representation, democracy, civility
> or the objective of good government would be served by having representatives
> chosen on the basis of political party.
>
> If one is to promote the concept of Direct Democracy, the case against
> political party represenation becomes even stronger because one is asserting
> that individual citizens are sufficiently cognizant of governmental issues to
> have their say directly. They do not need a political party of any form to
> represent their views.
>
> Political parties are very unintelligent and opportunistic animals. If we have
> any sense, we will recognize them for the anachronism that they are and
> dispose of them post haste.
>
> Political parties are a detriment to civil society. THAT'S what I think.
>
> Paul Isaacs
>
>
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
