Democracy (Part 2 of 3)

Now, in my last post I brought up how our system is flawed- one of the main flaws being the electoral system. Another flaw in my mind in the duel-party system.

Yes, two parties (in theory) create a balance. Right against left, liberal against conservative; both pitting their views against one another in order to create a moderate compromise.

This does sound good in theory. However, the problems seem to outweigh the good. The problems with this system is that a compromise is rarely reached. People are biased to an extreme; to be moderate is becoming synonymous to "one who never gets elected." Party loyalties run deep- too deep to make compromises.

Look at the Health care debacle. Currently, we're in a standstill. Democrats are trying to keep the bill as is, and the Republicans refuse to pass it. This is a sticky situation; health care is complicated enough without having 1,000 amendments attached to it. In this case, it seems even when a Republican is leaning toward the passing of the bill, he restrains himself due to his party alliance.

Party favors will not help this country. Generally, competent national leaders tend to hold utilitarian (greatest good for greatest number) or common good sort of ethics. It has come to a point in our country where the party allegiance is interrupting the ability to make bills that benefit a great amount of people. .

As a result, congress argues, nothing gets done, and hundreds- millions- of people go one without something as (bias alert!) fundamental as health insurance. This is a sign of weak government; if America wishes to keep here hemogenic status, she must try to support her people.

America's people are diverse; they deserve diverse representation. Say, for argument's sake, the electoral election process is finally abolished. Now, it would make sense to have a proportional system (more than one winner per district; seats allotted by percentage won) with multiple parties. There would be more debate, yes, things would get done.

Look at Britain. They have several parties and they still manage to keep first world status. They have fiery debate and- main point here- they come to a decision! Imagine that- something concrete in politics. Now, Britain is different because they lack a separation of powers, so the Prime Minister's party runs everything.

However, imagine a hybrid.

Take the separation of powers (so the President's party doesn't rule everything). Now add a dash of Democrat, a rinse of Republican, a glob of Green, a little bit of Libertarian and some assorted spices, and we have a very, very representative body. With so many opinions, it would be physically IMPOSSIBLE to get anything done correct?

No. Incorrect.

If people (and I have enough faith in people to believe this) realize that we have such low autonomy and need compromises, then having a multiparty system would discourage party alliance (there are too many parties) and people would vote for what was right for the country, not for the party. In order to survive, people would NEED to compromise, lest America fall off the face of the international stage.

Let's keep the party favors for the next birthday party, shall we?