Ex-News Junkie
From my perspective, party politics is inferior.
Sun Nov 5, 2017 8:20pm

You vote on this mishmash of party policies, or that mishmash of party policies. Afterward, you have an ineffective dictatorship in power for years before getting a chance to vote again. What likely influences which party gets voted in is the media, acting as a bunch of rabble-rousers using mob mentality/mass hysteria to sway the vote. So, you've already GOT mob rule and don't realize it. Plus, you get a system paralyzed by diametrically opposed party objectives with politicians constantly maneuvering to undermine each other.

So what's the difference between what we have and what I suggest? Direct democracy wouldn't be continually hamstrung by legal quagmires, scandals (actually this might still happen but it wouldn't bring down the government), and administrative paralysis. Government policy would advocate for and represent the majority interests, in fact would be determined by the people by plebiscite rather than party policy, and not the minority interests. Actual elected representatives would be elected regionally, but not be party members, so their duty would be to implement policy in a manner that works best for their region, by consensus.

  • For example, you have a minority demography with a practice "offensive" to a majority, but otherwise harmless. The mob rule majority determines the practice illegal? Under a democratic republic,... more
    • From my perspective, party politics is inferior. — Ex-News Junkie, Sun Nov 5 8:20pm