<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Nov 28, 2016 8:32 AM, "Fred Gohlke" <<a href="mailto:fredgohlke@verizon.net">fredgohlke@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Good Morning, Michael<br>
><br>
> re: "The next step would be spontaneous demand for democracy."<br>
><br>
> You've mentioned this several times, and emphasized that it would occur without leaders or organizers. That's unrealistic. The realities of life, particularly our economic needs, tend to distract us from serious thought about public concerns. When, as in the United States, the political infrastructure militates against public decision-making, the people's political talents atrophy.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote)</p>
<p dir="ltr">People aren't interested in leaders. Well, the Trump people are. Progressives aren't. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But I encourage you to lead a movement for the things that you want, like the abolition of parties.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(Replying farther down--I don't have a way to delete text.)</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
> One of the difficulties in achieving democracy is that true democracy offers no rewards for individuals or vested interests; it gives no individual or group an advantage over others. Hence, it offers no incentive for power-seeking individuals or groups to advocate its adoption. We will only achieve democracy when those of us with an interest in the topic take the time to create a framework in which citizens are encouraged to discuss their political concerns with their peers and elevate the best advocates of the common interest to public office.<br>
><br>
><br>
> re: "I wouldn't equate parties in general to the Nazi party."<br>
><br>
> All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public. </p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Well, maybe you can get rid of ideology, as well as parties.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Dictionaries define "ideology" as opinion, shared feelings, goals, aspirations, proposed solutions, etc.</p>
<p dir="ltr">With sufficient leadership maybe the goal & aspiration of getting rid if that is achievable.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">(You continued) :</p>
<p dir="ltr">We may get a demonstration of that in the U. S., in the nextd couple of years. One party has gained control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote)</p>
<p dir="ltr">One party with 2 right wings has been in office for a long time.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(You continued) :</p>
<p dir="ltr"> As a result, the checks and balances provided by our Constitution will be ineffective.<br>
><br>
> Partisanship is a vital part of society, provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Then you'd better not allow the public to elect party candidates, or not let government be controlled by people who are elected.<br><br></p>
<p dir="ltr">(I'd said) :</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
><br>
> re: "This country has problems much worse than having parties.<br>
><br>
> The Democrat and Republican parties are a result, not the<br>
> cause, of those problems."<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">( You continued) :</p>
<p dir="ltr">> In terms of our government, what could be worse than the parties telling us who we can vote for? </p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote) :</p>
<p dir="ltr">Most parties offer candidates for whom they invite you to vote. What could be worse than that?</p>
<p dir="ltr">And no, the Democrats & Republicans don't tell you whom you can vote for. They just nominate candidates.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> But the media tell you whom you can vote for (Democrats & Republicans). But we've covered the media.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(You continued) :</p>
<p dir="ltr">Voting for a party's candidates is not evidence of free choice</p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote) :</p>
<p dir="ltr">Then I encourage you to vote only for independents.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(You continued) :</p>
<p dir="ltr"> it shows that we are slaves of the parties that deny us the right to make our own decisions. </p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote) :<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">Then be sure to not let the Greens succeed in enslaving you with their proposals.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(You continued) :</p>
<p dir="ltr">The parties know, and thrive on the simple fact that those who set the options control the outcome.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(endquote)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Then let an independent set your options instead. Or run for office instead of voting for anyone else's options.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(You continued) :</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
><br>
> re: "... in the long run, people who harm are the main<br>
><br>
> recipients of their harm, and their own main victims."<br>
><br>
> I once thought there was a similarity in our views. I was wrong.</p>
<p dir="ltr">You think?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Michael Ossipoff<br>
><br>
> Fred Gohlke<br>
> ----<br>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</p>