Two Parties By Joseph Hammer September 26, 2009 First of all, I love what you are doing. I have the greatest respect for those whose vocation is the improvement of the condition of mankind. There is no greater opportunity for improvement than in government, so I salute you. I seek truth. I believe that many things act as barriers to truth, so I have consulted the masters for tips. There is a rule that Socrates taught me when proposing something new. Do not write back and disagree with what I am about to type. If you disagree, play Devil's advocate, so you do not attach your ego to the disagreement. Turn the idea over in your head if you have not thought about it in depth. This research is more important to me than my shabby life, and part of my study is in why people make bad decisions. My studies indicate that once you say you are for or against something in a debate, you will stick to that position in the face of a landslide of evidence. For that reason, if a point is important, think for a day. If it is really important, then think for a week... then take an informed position. And so, the position for which there is a landslide of evidence... The primary root cause of political parties is the simple majority rule. The most important secondary cause is the representative system. Political parties are vote pooling mechanisms. To complicate that fact is to be lead astray. The situation that provides vote pooling the most impact is a low bar for approval... 50%... even 66%. By far the more damaging is 50%. It not only allows propositions with small minority support to become binding in an individual case, it allows long term voting alliances... Parties. With or without representation, you can see this to be the case. Referendums in the states that allow them are often promoted or started by political parties. Let's not dress up a vote pool any more than we need to, because that is what parties are. They allow environmentalists, teachers and seniors to pool votes on one side (among others), and Christians, businessmen and small government types to pool their votes in opposition. This destroys our morality, because to feel any degree of control over one's country, one must gang up with those who wouldn't naturally be allies. Rather than acknowledging the purpose of the party (vote pooling), we modify our value systems to judge favorably, the actions of those we find ourselves bound to in party loyalty. This warps our values. Like the tree that Eddie looked to in Atlas Shrugged for support, it is rotten inside. A 50% majority fosters vote pooling. It's just SOOO easy to do. If you don't do it, others will, and you will be left powerless. A 66% majority makes short term vote pooling possible, but it works against long term political parties... but they are still influential at this point. A bar at 75%+ for passage of new laws effectively eliminates the advantages of vote pooling. Treating 50% as sacred is intellectually bankrupt. It says, "We do not value restraint in government." This 50% rule was canonized by politicians who believed the government should have power... authority. These are the same root causes that offer every nation representation rather than direct control of the government. Representatives always vote for there to be power, and they always vote that it should fall only into their hands. Two examples of direct democracy... both of them staggering successes... and yet, governments never try this approach. It is systemic deception that history will vanquish... eventually =P This is an aspect of democracy we never question, but it is one of the two most important questions we could trouble ourselves with. The other is Direct vs. Representative democracy. I am FULLY on board with the direct approach. Parrhesia first.