Making representation less powerful

For the past 30 years there has been a trend to get rid of the dreaded "two party system". In California we are going to vote on having "open" primaries. Rather than voting for members of your party, you can vote for any party. Sounds good huh?

In England they are eliminating the two party system by going to proportional representation. Isn't it funny that they had the same idea as us at the same time or vice versa? I had previously posted on England's "coalition" government. Now lets look at what these changes will mean.

Lets start with the mantra that has been repeated to everyone for the past two years. "Too big to fail". We have been told that we cannot afford to have organizations that are too big to fail. What they really mean is too big to compete. That is what happens when you don't have two parties. Coalitions cannot make big changes, they can never agree on them.

The lack of one party with control is that you cannot make major changes. You cannot agree on a complete plan, only bits. That is the purpose behind getting rid of partisan politics. Once a general plan is in place, eliminate competition so that the rules, overall, stay.

It is not about too big to fail, it is about impossible to compete. That is the game. Imagine living in a society with 1% of the population being child molesters. In a no two party, "proportional" government, they would get 1% of the votes. If a party needed 1% to have control of the government, they would take the 1% knowing that the 1% will always be outvoted and cannot institute their bigger policies, they cannot change the fundamental laws. This also means that child molesters decide your final laws on everything else. Get it?