Mudcat Café message #1273321 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #73264   Message #1273321
Posted By: Little Hawk
16-Sep-04 - 03:05 PM
Thread Name: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
Sounds reasonable to me, freightdawg. :-) (I got kind of vehement there...because I have come to truly detest the whole idea of political parties.) I think society could very well function as a cooperative commune on a large scale...if people would just try it.

A representative assembly such as I am suggesting would give an equal vote to each representative, and the representatives would come from every region of the country. They would each naturally have in mind the concerns of their region...but by working together they would also be well aware of national concerns, and would have to work on balancing the one set of considerations against the other.

Quite honestly, I think that even if such representatives were chosen by random lot from a pool of qualifited people in each region...that it would end up way better than our present form of government. Public service would then not be seen as "winning" a competitive election, but rather volunteering one's time and energy in service of one's community (for a reasonable salary, of course). This would be quite an honour.

An assembly of such representatives would naturally come forth with many individual opinions and viewpoints...and they would have to discuss and debate the merits of those and propose legislation as they say fit...but the vital thing is: they would not be artificially divided into two warring parties, facing one another across the floor of the assembly with the intention of frustrating and impeding each other's progress, and turfing the other side out of power.

This would naturally result in a far more harmonious form of governing, and the recall arrangements would be a strong motivation to sitting members to serve their constituents well.

A voting member would not be under party pressure to vote "the party line", but would be free to vote as he/she truly believed was best. This again is absolutely vital for real democracy to be achieved.

The biggest mistake of this whole society, as we have it, is the unspoken assumption that the adversarial method is the way to get things done. It's a very poor way to get anything done, war being the ultimate example of that. All adversarial situations are warlike in concept, the only question is: what are the rules as to how far you can go in attacking the other side? It gets out of hand fast, and it encourages cheating, dishonesty, bribery, crime, violence, and whatever else is seen to work (meaning: to provide you with victory).

A 2/3 vote for ratification is a far better idea than a bare majority. If 2/3 of any assembly is in favour of something, you can be pretty sure it's not something irresponsible or destructive. That is not so when you only need 51% to push something through.

In fact, I'd rather see it a 3/4 vote for ratification, all things considered. 2/3 is the bare minimum to ensure responsibility. And without that...well, you don't get to pass any new legislation.

I see no danger in such an idea, but a great opportunity. Remove the party power structures and the rivalries they deliberately spawn and encourage, and you would not find it hard to achieve this degree of cooperation between independently thinking representatives.