[EM] Small National Assembly. Bottom-Up Government.

[Michael Ossipoff]

To usurp means to seize illegally or by force without right. So is that how
the Greens want to acquire the reins of government?

Everyone who runs for office offers hir representative-services at the
reins of government. That's true whether you're an independent or endorse a
party platform.

Subvert: To pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance or
faith.

So those are the things that Jill Stein and the Greens want to do?

Maybe the application of those words to all parties can't be justified.

Michael Ossipoff


On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> Good Morning, Michael
>
> We express ourselves differently, but there is similarity in our views.
> If I can do so without seeming argumentative, I'd like to describe my
> attitude about parties.
>
> You mention that I "feel that parties are a bad thing".  It's true, I do,
> but this is a complicated topic because partisanship is an important part
> of society.  It is a natural part of human interaction that gives breadth,
> depth and volume to our voice.  It is not only inevitable, it is healthy.
> Parties provide the path for change.  Our efforts here, in discussing a
> bottom-up political system, will be futile if we cannot attract others to
> join us - and that's partisanship.
>
> Even so, parties are dangerous.  As George Washington warned us in his
> Farewell Address, political parties provide the means for cunning,
> ambitious, and unprincipled men to subvert the power of the people and
> usurp for themselves the reins of government.  When parties control the
> political infrastructure, the people are blocked from deciding the issues
> and naming the candidates for public office.
>
> That's why achieving a bottom-up structure is so important - it gives
> non-partisans a voice in politics; a way to soften the excesses of party
> politics.
>
> While it is true that "Parties & their platforms clarify and summarize the
> offerings", that is a top-down concept.  when political action starts at
> the neighborhood level, the people - including, but not limited to party
> members - will decide the issues and select the candidates they believe
> able to resolve them.  Such an arrangement encourages the absorption of
> diverse interests, reducing them to their essential element: their effect
> on the participants in the process. There are no platforms, there is no
> ideology, the divisiveness of party politics is gone.  The only question
> is, which participants are the most attuned to the needs of the community
> and have the qualities required to advocate the common good.
>
>
> You wrote, "It will be natural if & when, by conversations everywhere,
> there comes to be a largely unanimous feeling that democracy is never going
> to be allowed under current rule. It's about conversation, not leaders or
> organizers."
>
> I don't disagree, but someone has to start the conversation - as we are
> doing here.  To that extent, we are leaders.  However, in this case, once
> thoughtful conversation starts, others may show themselves to have better
> ideas than ours.
>
> Fred Gohlke
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161124/abc985bf/attachment-0001.htm>