|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Introducing
the Party
|
||||
|
Many have thought to improve society if only government officials would listen. However, politicians listen mainly to power. If one has political power, one can use the power of the state to put across one’s ideas. If not, all this dreaming of a better society is a futile exercise of imagination. The discussion should be focused first upon how to gain state power. If all the voters in the United States were agreed upon certain policies, it would be no problem to elect government officials who would put them into practice. But it is unlikely that everyone will agree on anything. One person’s opinion will cancel out another’s so that nothing can be done. It is problematic, then, that a political party can gain state power by force of its better ideas. Competing interest groups will frustrate that end. |
||||
|
Let’s try another approach. If people cannot agree on a certain program, they can perhaps agree that they want to achieve state power. An organization can be formed devoted to that aim. Such an organization would be a political party. Let’s call it “Gold Party”. Why this name? Is this party proposing to return to the Gold Standard? No, it’s about owning a political party. Gold is high-grade ownership. There would not be a single owner of Gold Party but many. Think of this as analogous to money. Money is individually owned. Yet, no one owns the whole economy. Each person owns a small part of it. Unlike money, however, political power must be assembled in a certain quantity to become effective. So the situation is a bit tricky. A political party needs to be formed with a sufficient ownership base to win a majority of votes in an election. People need to be motivated to seek an ownership interest in that party. As owners acting together, they would control the party; and if the party elected enough people to political office, it would control the government. Ownership of the government is the key to all other power and success in society. |
||||
|
This scheme depends, however, upon unequal ownership interests in the party. Yes, democratic elections are based on the principle of “one man, one vote”; but that does not mean that political parties internally have to give an equal voice to all its members. In fact, to do so would frustrate the purpose of growth through a proper system of internal incentives. And the party needs to grow to achieve its real purpose which is gaining control of the government and exercising political control. We’re talking here of voting strength. Theoretically it’s possible for a political party to give one member three votes in deciding its affairs and another member five, even as it’s possible for one shareholder to own three shares of stock in a publicly-held corporation while another owns five shares. This can be done without overturning the “one man, one vote” principle that guides participation in democratic elections. |
||||
|
Why should a political party consider adopting a system of unequal voting. Political parties need to motivate people to work on building their organization. If each person receives an equal vote in the affairs of a party regardless of contribution, they will not be motivated to work on behalf of the party. All they need to do is show up when elections are held. That’s the system we have now. It’s why political parties are presently weak. There is insufficient motivation for members to help the party because no one has a clear sense of ownership. Party members simply hope they can pick candidates who will win elections. The real power lies with the moneyed groups which contribute money to campaigns and then lobby for favors after a candidate is elected. Some such groups contribute to both sides. People who work in political campaigns are volunteers, hoping that something good will come of their effort. Yes, the volunteers have earned a certain good will with public officials whom they have helped to elect; but is only good will, not ownership or control. |
||||
|
There is a reason that this proposed political party is called “Gold Party”. Gold suggests riches. It suggests money. The party's structure of voting mimics the mechanisms of money earned in a business. While idealistic in our aims for society, we are realists about the effort we expend to help someone else achieve public office. We need to retain some degree of control. Uncontrolled, the politicians rank with the used-car salesmen - pardon the gratuitous slap at this occupation - in public-opinion polls indicating which groups are trusted least. Gold is also the type of medal that an athlete receives for winning first place. Election to public office requires finishing in first place. Plato proposed that political rulers concoct a myth that the human race was created in three metallic grades: gold, silver, and bronze. So there is support also from the classical Greek philosophers to support gold’s preeminent place. Democratic society would not support the concept of humanity’s unequal worth, of course, but unequal voting according to contribution within political parties might pass muster if the results are right.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||