|
Simple fact is, without one of the major parties becoming a party of reform, willing to support initiatives to improve plurality and representation, such reform will never happen.
I personally support pluralism. I am a Democrat, and disagree with the much of the economic side of the Libertarian Platform (I totally agree with most of the social side of it). But the fact that nationally and consistantly 2-3% of Americans vote Libertarian and they have 0% representation in the government is very distressing.
Opponents may scream for the need to protect against 'dangerous fringe elements'. If they are so fringe, then what danger could they possess, and if they are widely supported then who is it they are really endangering?
I support a parliamentary style reform of the US House, to allow national party representation proportional to national polling. This nation's politics is not as divided geographically as is by ideas and positions in today's age. Our representative boundaries should therefore reflect more ideology and less geography.
I recognize that if such a system is enacted, it might cost Dems some seats. As a Democrat I can accept that.
The Democratic Party is the one most likely to be willing to enact positive pluralism reforms in government, but it will take more people in the party realizing the need for them. At least the Party has already positioned itself as the promoter of freer elections and encouragement of greater participation while the Republicans are more resistant to reforms.
Pressure from Greens and Libs, at least so far as has been demonstrated, won't bring about the change. It has to start with the Dems or Reps.
__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."
- DTH
|