I am not a Party Goer

I have never been a party person. I can't say anything original about why the party system ruins our politics. No, the two-party system does not ruin it: the party system ruins it. They may be a natural growth of the connections and deals politicians will make to push their agendas. I can't associate with any party. I want to point out that I hate writing this, because while this may be a "rant" blog, I do intend to mean something with what I say and this is very hard to write without sounding like regurgitated echos.

I'm scrambling to describe my thoughts about this. I don't like not being able to pour the words into the <textarea> and just keep rambling on with at least some feeling that I'm keeping coherent thoughts.

I associate mostly with democrats, but its a deal made good by volume more than quality. I see benefits in ideals of democrats, republicans, libertarians, socialists, communists, etc. I suppose conservatives are the only group I can't find a shred of understanding with. Is The Right fighting the bailouts and government expansion in a weak attempt to push themselves back in power? I don't know. I do know that I see some merit. I want to socialize a lot of services, but I don't want to support the failing banks. The problem is not just the usual situation of no one party doing everything I like, but not even doing the few things I like for the reasons that I would. I don't want to let the banks and insurance companies fail because it is capitalism at its finest. I don't believe in loans and insurance and want to see them abolished, and if the free market has done that, so be it. If it won't, I support making them illegal and that is content for another post.

Obama has really disappointed me, sort of. I expected it, so i guess its not a disappointed to get the same frustrations you already expected. I did think that the support of Lessig would mean he gives a fairer chance to free software and the end of copyright chaos, but his RIAA friends are just going to run wild now. More later.

Bachmann is a crazy lunatic, but she's right about one thing: Orderly Revolution is good every now and then. Is it a revolution if you do it legally, within the powers of democracy?

Why Flip-Flopping Politicians Are Great

The term "flip-flop" is a political black mark, but one that is probably said (truthfully) about every single politician, at some point in their career. Still, we act surprised and hurt when one of our representatives changes their mind. Do you know what we get when our politicians don't flip-flop? We get people in power like George Walker Bush, our current Commander in Stubborness.

As a nation (or as a world) we need to learn to embrace the flip-flop. This is the great ability human beings, including politicians, need to have. This is the ability to change your mind. Be it because the facts changed, the information you had at hand changed, or because political pressure demands it. Now, I emphasized that last part. Why? Because flip-flopping for political reasons is the best reason to do it! As our representative, these politicians are supposed to stand for what their constituents want them to support. Swaying for political pressure is a sign that the politician knows their place in the machine: our voice. They aren't supposed to have hard-wired positions they won't back down on.

Embrace the candidate who changes their mind for the most votes, because that is the voter-pleaser. Bush doesn't care about pleasing the voters, and that fact is his biggest mistake. The lack of being able to change his mind when the people do is what continues to distance him from even those who put him where he is today.

Upgrade Your Democracy

Seth Godin is a bright guy. I thought so yesterday and I think so more today. Having your views paralleled and expressed when you haven't found how or where to do so is great. Few other experiences are as refreshing as unannounced, welcome company.



Read is post on why our outdated politics need to adapt, which a far truer thing than most of us realize: Seth's Blog: 1840s democracy



My favorite two points involve the outdated geographical systems of our districts and candidate ranking versus voting.



To quote Seth, "Our issues aren't farm-based any more." I agree on more issues with people in entirely different locations than I ever will with people next door or even in the same town. New communications make connecting those people all the more easy, and yet we need to struggle, all of us, to gain ground mixed in with so many people in our locale. Popular opinion does not walk or run, but it does fly right over your neighbor's head and to you.



Saying anything about how bad our bipartisan system is won't do any good and won't include anything original, but candidate ranking replacing candidate voting would only improve the situation. How many of us either throw out vote away on a minor-party candidate or refuse to give them any help at all out of fear of throwing away that vote? Ranking solves the issue, because even if the Greene Party has far too few votes to get an official elected, they can still get their second choice into power. Bush would not have happened with a ranking electoral process. Period.



Definitely some things to think about.





Technorati Tags: politics

Powered by ScribeFire.