From: | "Ted Becker" <becketl(at)auburn.edu> |
---|---|
Date: | Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:45:58 -0500 |
Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism |
Yes, by definition, political parties are the opposite of democracy. An"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 08/08/10 11:55 AM >>>
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I wonder if anyone would considerthe
notion that a political system based on voting is anti-democratic?person
To vote is, by definition, to make a choice regarding an issue or
proposed by others (whoever they may be).their
What --- in that concept --- gives voters an opportunity to advocate
own view?
Anyone who read Robert Michels' 1915 book, Political Parties: A
Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy,
must see that partisan systems subject us to the Iron Law ofOligarchy.
The voters have no choices but those offered by their 'leaders'.define
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf
Contemporary politic systems are campaign and partisan based and
the issues and individuals upon whom the public is permitted to vote.of
Partisan systems disenfranchise the majority of the electorate. They
provide no way to aggregate the attitudes and wishes of the majority
the body politic --- the non-partisans.let
Roy Daine, before his untimely death two years ago, and I offered a
practical alternative to partisan systems; an electoral process that
everyone in the electorate participate in the electoral process to the
full extent of his or her desire and ability. I can publish thedetails
again, but, except for Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan, there doesn't seemto
be many WDDM members interested in the concept.
Fred Gohlke