Party of Two

In this presidential election year, I think again about our two major political parties. I could go into how I think they are actually very similar to each other. -especially after campaign promises are long forgotten. That aside, one can make the argument that limiting the final vote to two choices gets us is a feeling of "majority". -more than 50%. In a democracy, I think we hope for a situation where we can feel that "most of the people" (majority) want it "this way". If the final presidential vote included 3 or more people, it is considerably less likely any one of them would get more than 50% of the vote. So an argument might be made that democracy is not served in that case (more than two major parties/candidates). Of course, one can say that the people's will is being imposed during conventions, and primaries, etc., where the final two are chosen in the first place. All of this thinking, though, misses one major point: We are voting for outcomes, not people. We want our government to be modified, enhanced, or cut back in certain ways. We vote for the people as representatives of how we want OUR government system changed. The way one candidate representative sees the government working is not mutually exclusive to what another proposes. So, one of three or more candidates can represent a majority of voters wishes, since many of those wishes will also be in line with what other candidates are proposing. I.e. there is overlap. We may already realize this, on some level. There will be compromise, but it is possible to get someone in office who believes in, say, 80% of what maybe 80% of the people want. So we are really voting for a set of issues we agree with a candidate on. -almost like a pre-packaged cable TV "bundle". We hope to get most of what we want. But why do we even need this middle person? -the representative. Why does it need to be bundled into a package? Why couldn't we go a la carte? Why do we even need the representative, in the first place? I don't want to waste time with this personal popularity contest. I'd rather just vote directly on the issues. Unlike when our governmental system was started, we currently have the technology to do that now. Look at shows like American Idol, for an example that electronic remote voting is possible. You might say "I don't have time to vote on every little issue." OK . . . Right now you vote directly on NO issues. Wouldn't you want the OPTION of voting on issues important to you? How hard would it be to set up a system where you could set a general preference for your vote on issues? -an automatic proxy. -a "representative" that actually listens to you. E.g. "conservative", "liberal", etc. -or, more useful, "tend to keep as is" (what used to be known as "conservative"), "cut program, if largely in question by others", "yes to programs that promote _______". I mean . . . many people might still not have the time to be involved. But wouldn't even a small amount of participation be more than people's current levels of participation in government? Lobbyists are certainly involved in government. Don't you want to be? I'd figure retirees might have the most time to participate in such a system. Many older people have a strong interest in staying informed about community (from local to world) issues. Would it be such a terrible thing to have the people who are the most experienced (i.e. They've been around long enough to see some of what has and hasn't worked, in the past), and informed among us, empowered to be directly involved in deciding governmental policies? You might say "Electronic voting for something like American Idol, is fine. But I wouldn't want to expose voting for important things, to hackers." If you do ANY on-line banking or buying, you ALREADY trust something most people think is more valuable than a vote (their money) to network security systems. There have been electronic voting systems proposed and piloted. We hear things about the "danger" of voting fraud or mistakes. It's interesting (suspect?) to me. An on-line company wants to be able to transfer hundreds of dollars from from a person, and we find a way to make the network/computer transaction "secure". But we want to transfer ONE vote from ourselves, to OUR government, and that is too "dangerous" to try? The cryptographic algorithms used for privacy and authentication are already trusted and used by the most defensive government agencies. Nothing is always secure all the time. Cash can be lost. Ballots can be lost, counted wrong (by the electronic vote counter), etc., etc. -or EVEN WORSE, NEVER COLLECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, because it is a pain to get to a "place of voting", during a prescribed time, or you simply don't think it matters much because your wishes will be filtered through, and easily ignored by, your "representative", rather than directly counted as in favor of a specific governmental change. What good is a "right" to vote, if it is prohibitively hard for some individuals, or is never TRULY COUNTED directly for or against a real-world policy issue. There is another major issue about this "right", though. I'm going to save that for another post.