Scrap political parties

Scrap political parties
Letter - Press Enterprise - March 2, 2009

So if you're a Republican, your vote on an issue should be the same as that of all other Republicans? And if you're a Democrat, the same is true?

I've seen that way of thinking played out in the recent votes in Congress on the bailout and stimulus bills and in the Legislature with the recent vote on California's budget.

That being the case, why do we need all those folks representing us?

If individuals can't think for themselves and a party is expected to vote as a bloc, why not just have a couple of senators representing us instead of hundreds? We could save a ton of money and make the legislative process much more efficient.

OK, this is a little tongue in cheek, but only a little. I truly resent this method of running -- or not -- government. Forget the herd mentality. I want my representatives to think, to make decisions using logic while keeping in mind what is best for the people.

When I heard that the California Republican Party plans to punish those few Republicans who had the courage to vote for the recently adopted California budget by withholding financial aid to them, I was livid ("California GOP reprimands six lawmakers on taxes," Feb. 23).

For the benefit of this country, I think it is time to get rid of the party system. Let's vote for people on their merits and not on their associations. Let's get rid of the "aisle" and demand that our representatives make decisions based on clear-headed nonpartisanship.


(Response to Dennis Rice's letter from Dan Jeffs, March 2, 2009)

Re: Scrap political parties
Letters - Dennis Rice

Dennis Rice is taking nonpartisan democracy seriously, which is making more and more sense, if we are to survive the onslaught of the partisan blind leading the blind in the tax and destroy mentality infecting government.

I would like to add to his suggestions.We need to establish a more direct democracy approach as follows:

Establish secure voting networks throughout the country connected to voters homes. All elections would be conducted over the networks, and the networks would also allow voters to communicate with each other and their elected representatives. People are already getting a jump on such a system with all the communications going on over the Internet. Arizona conducted their primary elections over a special system.

Here's the catch: The next step would take a constitutional amendment establishing nonpartisan direct representative democracy, wherein voters would elect well-compensated nonpartisan professional government managers instead of professional politicians. No campaigns or campaign funding. All representative candidates would be screened for the most qualified and selected over the voting networks. The representatives would be much like professional city managers. The voters would decide all matters of taxation, spending and public policy by two-thirds majority vote. And each of the several states would have the same direct democracy system.

Of course, there are three main obstacles that would have to be overcome. The existing two-party political establishment would be against it. The liberal indoctrination infecting the education system would be against it. And the liberal, including much of the conservative media, would be against it. In addition, many believe the people are too unsophisticated and ignorant to govern themselves. And they would be correct because the system has intentionally made many of them that way. Ignorant and dependent on government. In addition, corporate America might be frightened by it.

Still, because of the independent media and the Internet, more and more people are becoming more and more informed on their own. When things turn from bad to worse, and they will, the people simply won't take it anymore. This could be the answer.