One of my hobbies is procrastination. I'm going to work on getting out some blog posts that have been sitting in queue since early January.#

The thread was last written about here on January 7th.#

Gary Santoro writes two pieces about political parties for "Dean Independents."#

The crux of the first piece is that because the two main parties in America are becoming so similar, people are leaving them in large numbers as "Independents" who look for another source of their own revelation. Nothing really strikes me as something new to add to the discussion.

But here is the sentiment:

In my opinion, the two-party structure is vulnerable to corruption and prone to the type of declines in effectiveness described in this piece. Where is a third voice, or third opinion? Today, we are limited to a choice of two political organizations that have attained large scale. A third choice could provide diversity and better representation, better checks and balances, and objectivity. Having greater than three major parties in government might be fragmentary and prevent consensus, but I would argue that our two-party system limits competition.

The second case basically emphasizes the last quote and makes the case for Howard Dean as an "Independent's Democrat."

Ole Eichhorn gets email about a post of this nature he wrote.#

Be careful what you wish for! I received an email from Ivan-Assen Ivanov, a Bulgarian, reporting that they have proportional representation, and it isn't working out:

[...]

So be it - nothing like real data! I also received email from others pointing out that in Israel's system fringe parties have undue influence, with negative implications. Fascinating.

So the downside of proportional representation is that small fringe parties have too much influence, while currently in the U.S. it could be argued they do not have enough. I wonder if there is a middle ground? Or perhaps every system has its upside and downside, and none is "best".

The "answer" is, of course, to not have a system that lets anybody coerce anyone else... but THATS not logical now is it?

Richard Tallent replies to the above post about election systems and political parties.#

Richard Tallent perfectly defines the ways that politicians exist only to extend and perpetuate their power. He speaks about this in terms of the two forms of legislations that are passed and then way every issue is a win for both sides:

The second kind are those bills that they all agree on, usually because such bills perpetuate their power. These are the insidious ones. For these, their justification is that it is more pragmatic simply to "do what's best for the people" than to risk public debate on the matter. This is where we get our Patriot Act II, hidden Executive Orders, last-minute amendments, and the "rule changes" that institutionalize the two-party structure.

It's strange because Richard and I got to the point where we agree and I don't really feel there's anything more to add. I'm curious of how this applies to blog etiquette. Is it proper to just link the reply without comment? Should you say "This space left blank intentionally?" Just an, "I agree?"

Hmmm!