I am very concerned about the state of "democracy".

It appears to me that democracy is not democratic at all.

The following quote is extract from the online Encarta encyclopedia.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...States.html#s2

The framers of the United States Constitution made no provision in the governmental structure for the functioning of political parties because they believed that parties were a source of corruption and an impediment to the freedom of people to judge issues on their merits. James Madison argued in his The Federalist “No. 10” paper against a system in which “factions” (his word for parties) might be able to seize control of the government (see Federalist, The). George Washington, in accordance with the thinking of his fellow Founding Fathers, included in his Cabinet men of diverse political philosophies and policies, rather than narrow his choices to those of a single political outlook.

My concern is that James Madison was absolutely correct and factions have ceased control of the US, Canadian, British, and other govenments where parties are in power.

There are a number of characteristics of democratic governments that allow the principals of democratic government to be undermined.

1) Politicians are dependent on campaign contributions.

2) The rich and wealthy organizations are able to make large political contributions, while the average citizen is not in a finacial postion to do so.

3) Politicians advertise themselves during elections.

4) Aggregation of representatives into groups involves the choosing of a leader who then enforces a homogeneous behaviour for the group. The individual group members are pressured by a party whip to vote collectively on issues, and individuals are discouraged from debating or voting by their own conscience or according to the will of their constituents.

5) Most poiliticians appear to operate on the basis of mandate. They seem to feel that because the people elected them, that their personal views and those of their party are supported by the people for the duration of their term. What the people actually want on each issue appears to be disgarded as not relevant.

Example:

80% of Canadians opposed the abolition of the death penalty, but the Liberal party, in power, overruled the will of the people and eliminate the death penalty.

6) Polictical parties have the collective resources to manipulate the media, by conducting loaded polls, the results of which are reported in the media, and create a false impression of what the public actually wants.

Ridicualous example:

Polical poll:

Would you prefer to be tortured to death or pay higher taxes.

Rerported in the media:

According to a recent poll, 99% of tax payers support higher taxes.

7) All public statements are groomed to put the parties best spin on it, so as to influence public opinion.

8) Incumbent parties facing an upcoming election can go on a spending spree prior to an election to buy votes using the taxpayers money to support their election bid.

The result of these circumstances is that polical parties provide one stop shopping for those who would seek lucrative government contracts and who want legislation passed to increase their own personal wealth or power.

The contributions made to the campaign are used to advertise the party, where each individual candidate operates like a franchise owner, endorsed by the party and covered under the blanket party advertising campaign. Independent candidates cannot muster the resources to counter such huge advertising budgets.

The purpose of such campaign advertiseing appears to be to convince voters that the political party is their best choice, through FUD, when in fact these parties care little for the voter and really are just concerned about those who financed their campaign. They will make a show of concern for voters, but it is all FUD.

Political parties by their very existance undermine the principles of democratic govenment.

Individual representatives who should represent their constituents do not. They instead represent those who made campaign contributions. The leader of the party in power becomes a defactor dictator, representing only friends and those who financed the last campaign. Public opinion only matters to the extent that it cannot be manipulated and controlled, with rigger polls and carefully crafted public statements, written by expert speech writers and scrutinized to ensure a positive spin.

Political parties use social legislation to create programs and laws that are financed by public purse, where taxes on the wealthy are minimized and taxes on the middle class are maximized, to create an impression of caring for the little guy. These tactics are transparent efforts to buy votes in the next election using the taxpayers own money. Where taxes are not used, deficits are used, so that votes can be bought by robbing future taxpayers, without raising current taxes and incurring the rath of voters.

It appears that the worst fears of James Madison have been realized and we now live in thinly veiled corrupt marginal dictatorships, based on political FUD, that benefit the privileged class, while destroying the middle class and depressing the incomes of all but the wealthy, who are now experiencing vastly rising incomes, at the expense of all others.

The only solution appears to be to raise awareness of these problems and encourage people to vote independent. The elimination of political parties appears to be necessary in order to restore democratic government, and ensure that the governments act according to the will of the people and not according to the will of the priviledged class only.

fudfree

Nice rant.

This "solution" offered here is not justified or supported by any rational analysis given and is indeed, very unlikely to address the alleged "problem" (indeed, looks like it is more related to the cause rather than any kind of solution).

Do you have anything to contribute besides casting FUD?

FUD = Fear Uncertainty & Doubt ( a sleezy sales tactic used to discredit the competition based the purchaser's lack of knowledge, so that they will stick with your well known product. Example: "You could be in for trouble if you go that way. Best to stick with what you know." )

You statement reeks of political FUD and nothing else.

You have made a statement, which constitutes nay-saying, without argument to support the negative attitude.

Please note my user name "FUDFREE".

Don't give you me your FUD, I don't accept delivery.

Why, according to you, does the analysis given not address the problem?

Why, according to you, would such a change cause the government to be more controlled by the priviledged class and special interest groups, than it is now? (The Problem)

You have expressed attitude, but no substance.

As it stands your statement is meaningless and useless, other than to create FUD around a proposition that, I would guess, you might find threatening.

All you have said in effect is that you personally don't want to give up political parties, but for no supported reason.

Tell me why you think political parties are better than independent representatives.

FUDFREE

Get rid of the endless cycle of political FUD!

Vote to be represented, not ruled!

Independents represent you, not the party whip.

Support the "James Madison Ammendment" to ban all politcal parties.

Vote independent

fudfree,

I would stronlgy recommend that you read Federalist 10. You have some good points, but banning political parties won't do any good, because they would just re-emerge in an unofficial way.

As James Madison wrote, "The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

"Unofficial" association of politicians is to be expected. Brokering a deal is part of politics. You support my legislation and I will support yours. You cannot and perhaps should not attempt to eliminate such deals altogether.

However, political parties provide one stop shopping.

Individuals cannot form a majority. Only parties can form a majority. Add the party whip, to enforce voting the party line, and you have a ready made environment for the priviledged and special interest groups to buy the legislation they want with a single large contribution.

This cannot be accomplished without political parties.

A simple law requiring campagne contributors to only support candidates in one riding would prevent any individual or special interest group from buying a majority vote.

It is much harder to buy off a host of individuals for a majority vote, than it is to buy a political party majority vote.

In our time, the need for politcal advertising and political contributions may even be considered unnecessary. A single government WEB site could list the candidates in each riding and provide their bio, political views, certifications, etc. No endorsements should be allowed, since that would undermine the independence of the candidate. Further, government funded townhall debates between candidates in each riding would provide voters with a sense of how their potential candidates would perform if elected.

Further, politicians rely on party endorsement to garner votes. Without party endorsement, there is less likelyhood of associating representatives to be elected in such a way as to form a majority.

FUDFREE

In response to this: "Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'."

Here is something to free *your* head.

The quote is from the book, "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish," authored by Douglas Adams.

---------------------------------------

It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

"What?"

"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

Ford shrugged again.

"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

-------------------------------

MAD Michael, you appear to be the one who has to say it.

So which lizard are you voting for in the next election?

Are you voting for the Democratic species or the Republican species?

FUDFREE

very interesting stuff here

Yes. The disillusionment with 'representative' democracy is widespread. I look forward to a voter turnout of less than 30%. Perhaps then we can scrap it and arrest the 'representatives'.

__________________
668.....the neighbour of the beast.

Yanqui, go home.

We the people LIKE taking money from the Rep or Senator from our state and area...
People say change, but simply vote for the other side of the coin and get the same coin.....

__________________
Fear the Government