My Response to Matt Mittan

I heard a caller have a conversation with Matt Mittan on the radio about political parties. Matt is an "unaffiliated voter". The parenthesis is mine because I hear them when he speaks.

I think I have it right when I say that Matt thinks that parties are harmful to self-government. I disagree with that statement.
He said he supported coalitions rather than parties. I think of the horrors of Israeli coalition building, as well as the system it was based upon, the British System. I guess the bright side of that is government efficiency would suffer.
Another statement he made totally floored me. I thought he was joking, but evidently he wasn't. Here it is... He thinks it was awesome that 142 candidates were on the ballot for California Governor the last time around. Nuts, I say. I can think of not one positive thing about that race, save the word Governator.

I tried to get through, even using both my phones on auto-redial, but it was late, and ever since the two-call per week rule went into effect, I have only got in twice... I guess because I don't even try on the frivolous issues now, and everyone is waiting for the right topic to jump up on The Porch. Here is along the lines of what my response to him would have been, along with a challenge of my own in response to his challenge for Kathy to find anywhere in the U.S. Constitution about Political Parties...

---

ARGUMENT I.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or he right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is my belief that Political Parties are a right granted in the 1st Amendment clause "the right of the
people to peaceably to assemble," and any act by Congress to limit Party Affiliation is a violation of free
speech due to the prohibition agaisnt "abridging the freedom of speech," clause.

Put simply, Political Parties are the vehicle used by people to transmit their wishes in Government in an
amplified form using the adages that many heads are better than one, and many voices in unison are
louder than many voices alone.
People who do not belong to a party have the illusion of freedom of action, much like a hitch hiker has the
freedom to move in any direction. The fact remains for the hitch hiker to get anywhere efficiently, he must
ride in someone else's vehicle. He cannot be very effective at changing anything about that vehicle, he has to accept the way it is because he has no stake in that vehicle; with vehicle being the analogy for political party. Everyone cannot
steer the vehicle, that is what party leaders are for. We are not a Democracy, where a headcount is made before every tiny adjustment is made to the vehicle controls. We are a Republic, where our leaders are selected who will make these decisions for us based on general guidelines established in the Party Platform, and by
his/her establishing a case for following the vision of the person running for office.

Political parties are a way that has evolved to put a check on the mob rule of Democracy, which our Founding Fathers were right to fear, for they grew up learning of the disaster that became of Greek Democracies, time and again. They also looked upon the horrors of Rome as another example of Strong Men seizing the reins of governance, giving the mob bread and circuses to appease them.

Our Founding Fathers put many Checks and Balances into the Constitution, and virtually every Congress, President, and Supreme Court has attempted to chip them away for over two centuries.

ARGUMENT II.

Duverger's Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (click here because Wiki is acting funny and click on the third listing.)

Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a plurality voting election system naturally leads to a two-party system. The discovery of this principle is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a “law”. Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller, single-issue political parties.

I like "Take A Stand" and listen on a regular basis. Matt infuriates me sometimes because I feel he tends to cut people short, and hasn't really thought through the implications of a partiless America. (If it ain't a word, it is now.) I have more, but my time is running out in the cafe, and it is expensive. Maybe I can add more on Monday night.