[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Juho

re: "I guess US is still a democracy in the sense that people can decide 
otherwise if they so wish."

That is inaccurate.  The only choices the people have are those foisted 
on them by those who control the political parties that have a 
stranglehold on our nation's political processes.


re: "Probably also the media loves the massive and long campaigns and 
the numerous intermediate steps (primaries, elections per state) on the 
way, and many citizens probably enjoy them too."

Not as much as they (the media) love the political system that helped 
them achieve immense size and influence.


re: "It is a pity that the needs of show business may sometimes conflict 
with the needs of a simpler and more practical (and maybe also better 
working) political process."

Is it enough to merely tut-tut the show business aspect of politics?  Is 
it not time for specific complaints and specific alternatives?


re: "It is probable that the changes will take time and they may happen 
as many small steps."

As I once said, about 200 years ... if we're lucky.  As far as the many 
small steps are concerned, where do we start?  Would it make sense to 
outline an alternative, analyze it, critique it, amend it and seek the 
guidance of other thoughtful people about how to improve the role of the 
people in their government?  (I may be able to point you to an 
entertaining approach to this question in the near future.  I have a 
friend in the U. K., who is implementing a neat idea.)


re: "As already said, if people want some changes, in a democracy they 
can get it."

Not when all political activity is controlled and directed by vested 
interests.  The only alternative available to the people is violence, 
and that's the poorest choice possible.  Much better if we apply our 
intellect to seeking a solution.


re: "Much depends on how well the change promoters (as well as the 
opponents) can formulate and justify their proposals."

Are you among them?  As a promoter or an opponent?


re: "I also note again that people will roughly get the kind of system 
that they deserve."

As an old saw, that one is pretty good ... but it fails to lay the 
responsibility at the feet of the people's leaders.


re: "Maybe one could consider better education etc. to achieve better 
results."

We've had compulsory education in this country for over 150 years.  Can 
we be sure the educational system is not one of the causes of the 
problem?  Our local institute of higher learning has a substantial 
political science department.  It does a nice job of telling students 
what's wrong with the system (I sat in on a course, last year), but it 
does nothing to encourage them to develop thoughtful alternatives.


Should we be content to watch and, perhaps, smile at the foibles of our 
society without making a judgment as to the wisdom or rectitude of what 
we see?  We have described how our political parties (in the U. S.) have 
taken control of our government, why it happened, and why it is not good 
for the humans among us.  We have hypothesized that ...

... political parties are conduits for corruption.

... political parties control all political activity in the United 
States and are in no sense democratic.

... allowing those who control political parties to usurp the power of 
governing our nation is the antithesis of self-government.

... to improve our political system, we must find a method of selecting 
our representatives that is not controlled by political parties.

Are these points offensive?  Are they wrong?  If so, in what way?

If not, are they worthy of considerable intellectual effort to correct 
their ill effects?  Ought we not stand up and be counted?  How can we 
correct the conditions we presently endure?  If we can't do it in our 
lifetime, is it not incumbent on us to start the process so our progeny 
has something to build on?

Fred