Why Seven Political Parties?

Political parties have been controlling populations and governance since their inception.  No matter how people feel about such governing orders, each person is subject to the influence echelons possess within political parties, even when people declare themselves independent.

When voting, people are pressured – either directly or indirectly – toward one of the two primary orders.  In America, Democrat and Republican parties, through the DNC and RNC, control governance within the United States.  Convention committees within those parties set strict guidance on behavior and loyalty for candidates. It is truly a rare occurrence when any politician can consistently speak their own views.

Each time a person votes for a candidate, they do so to resist whichever party they dislike the most.  They may not like the one they voted for, though they would rather see that choice in office, as opposed to the one they despise even more for being ‘Them.’ Since there are generally only two choices, this creates a bipolar effect on societies.

As prior Arinorin articles outlined, two-party systems of democracies split societies nearly down the center of populations and we’ve been with these Us-Them Societies since the inception of political parties.

How do we break this mold? Many people have tried to press other governing orders into arenas with a few short-lived successes.  Occasionally, bickering influences take hold, resulting in restructuring of prior parties; like when Federalists were pressured from position by the National Republican and Whig parties, which quickly reformed into the Democrat-Republican party that bisected into Democrats and Republicans.  This took place during a time of considerable struggle and infighting, even a civil conflict.  Americans in the early Twenty-First Century are experiencing such unrest again.

Though crisis of the mid-1800s and early Twenty-First Century have distinct differences, historians have shown enough similarities that should give people pause to reflect carefully about the future.  With both primary parties of the Twenty-First Century experiencing considerable infighting, evidence is clear the two primary political orders are changing once again.  Through all the wrangling within those parties, the population is left waiting for the dust to settle, wondering what choices they will have in the future.  They do so while holding to their hatred of the other side – blaming Them for all hardships, when most everyone is at fault to some degree or another.

~ ~ ~

Nothing remains constant, and parties of Democrats and Republicans have evolved many times over the decades.  They are still evolving, though those two parties had established governmental procedures that anchored control between them, disallowing other upstarts to have influence.  In their control to hold position – knowing they needed an opposition to point to as culprits for hardships – the DNC and RNC still struggle to maintain their dominance, ensuring any third upstart is squashed early.

Controls of the bipolar system leave few routes for other governing orders to maneuver.  When a minor party do slip into governing offices, they are pressured by the two dominant orders and rarely last for long.  Even Bernie Sanders had to run as a Democrat to have the chance he did achieve to become President.  He gained ruthless criticism by many Democrat supporters for doing so, and he failed as an outsider.

No third political order has found a way to hold position; and unless fundamental changes are established, people will continue to be controlled by the echelons of the two primary parties.

Past changing of political parties did not come from other parties.  Those changes came from internal fracturing that restructured existing parties into new flavors, with most all members of prior parties continuing to hold positions under the new names.  With most politicians being part of established orders, this relabeling retained most of the same people under the guise of ‘New Management.’ This is the same as companies rebranding themselves, yet providing the same rubbish they had before. It’s a way to avoid responsibility and bad reputations from the past, though it doesn’t solve deep-rooted problems. As a song recounts; ‘Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.’

It is clear that two domineering parties don’t wish competition, no matter how they rebrand themselves.  They still need the ‘Them’ to be scapegoats for all hardships.  Relabeling governmental orders has yet to be favorable for the population. Bipolar views continue to force capitulation to one side or the other, retaining the divide of Us and Them division.

How to break the hold of bipolar political parties and ensure broader lifeways thrive? People have struggled with that dilemma for centuries.  So far, nothing worked; though that doesn’t mean solutions are not available.

~ ~ ~

The situation becomes even more divisive. The Us-Them divide within nations allows small portions of the population to control on populations.  Those clutching authority don’t need half the nation to go along.  With Primary-General elections, echelons only need a quarter of the nation to accept their rhetoric and fears for them to dictate forcibly to set policies on three-quarters of the nation.  This is done through exclusive loyalties to political parties. Since America and most nations are adhering to the bipolar construct, such parties will continue to subjugate people through manipulation of minor portions of society.

With only half of either primary party setting the path for their candidate, small portions of each party are able to elevate their particular candidate above others more worthy.  Since the nation is bipolar, and generally half the population is voting within one of two parties, and only half of those voting within either party can set the candidate.  That enables only a quarter of the entire voting population to elevate their candidate.  Since only a portion of voters actually vote, they don’t even have to get a quarter of the population to set their candidate into office.

One might say the people who don’t vote deserve what they get.  To an extent, there may be validity of such a statement; however – as will be pointed out later – there are many people in the nations working hard to prevent large portions of populations from voting.  This had been going on for a long time and continues to these days.  We must, as a population, ensure each person who has reached the Age of Commitment could comfortably vote, so that each person has the ability to influence the nation for the betterment of all unique peoples. This concept is hard for many selfish people to accept.

So, at present, with half of any party setting their candidate and America having only two domineering parties, the population is spoon fed two candidates for the General election.  With the constrictive nature of the Primary-General election process, a much smaller group of people within the RNC and DNC hold tremendous influence on the population.

With the Us-Them bipolar hatred within nations holding strong, General Elections become a match between two bickering factions, with those of the population taking sides.

~ ~ ~ Take time to let that sink in. ~ ~ ~

Hopefully, you took the time to let that situation process in your mind.  Understanding how less than a quarter of the population can simply take control of nations, we must consider means to end that control.

We, as a population, must form means to ensure wide variety of populations are represented; not just the bullying, smaller portions who manipulates systems to take control of people’s lives.  That means allowing all sorts of people to thrive and prosper, as well as vote.

It is possible, though the selfish will fight such changes. We, as a population, must not allow selfish people to dictate to all types of unique peoples.  That’s been going on far too long. The question most people still have; is how?

As presented in other Arinorin articles, people having the ability to mark ‘Yea’ or ‘Nay’ for each viable candidate—those who can reach 15% or 12% signatures of registered voters, no matter which party those candidates belong to—would go far in breaking holds the two domineering parties have.  Candidates with the most ‘Yeas’ would be elected for the position.

Gathering signatures would become a form of Primary election, though every registered voter would be able to sign any qualifying petition they see fit, no matter which party they may favor. They also would be able to sign petitions for more than one candidate for each election, enabling them to select people they truly like – as well as those they may find ‘safe.’

Approval Voting Method for elections wouldn’t be acceptable by established political party echelons. Neither would give up positions easily. People of societies will have to stand and say they want a fair system that doesn’t present spoon fed candidates from constrictive conventions. Party committees and conventions have been shown to be corrupt at the core and embedded echelons have manipulated populations and societies.

The Approval Voting Method (again, voting ‘Yea’ or ‘Nay’ for each candidate) would also be challenged by selfish people who feel they must force others to accept their candidate exclusively. Even so, the Approval Voting Method would break anchored holds party echelons and selfish people have. Allowing people to vote for those they actually like – as well as candidates they feel are ‘Safe’ – candidates with honor would have a true chance to rise into positions.

Again, the Approval Voting Method will still allow for ‘Safe’ voting, as well as giving voters the ability to vote for candidates they truly appreciate – those they find worthy of their appreciation, signatures, and votes. This will help propel candidates into ensuring most all the population thrives, not just those they are catering to.

Since this method allows more honorable candidates means to challenge less honorable politicians, those less honorable candidates will reject broader inclusion by limiting who is in the running for offices, even restricting who may vote in the first place. These are hard obstacles to overcome; but we must overcome such difficulties, if we’re to ever see a fair accounting of governance for all unique peoples.

Aside from the Approval Voting Method, establishing governance that accepts equal representation from at least seven political parties will bring greater views and concepts to societies. This method will make it harder for one or two parties to gain dominating authority over populations. 

~ ~ Why seven political parties? Why not just three, or four, or five?~ ~

Well, it appears lower number of political parties gravitate quickly to bipolar conditions.  The Us-Them attitudes continue to pressure lower numbers of parties to polarized sides.  It becomes obvious to those with wisdom that not creating mechanisms to break the bipolar effect perpetuates the cancerous hold a few have on societies.

Fundamental restructuring of societies is needed to break the bipolar effect, though this will not be a simple matter to achieve.  However, establishing means for seven political orders to hold positions of equal influence will enable broader governance for the population.

~ ~ ~

To view how seven governing orders can disrupt the bipolar effect, we must first review why a third party has never taken hold.  We have to remember that people naturally gravitate into groups and associations, and they join political parties to oppose an opposition.  Parties are a form of alliance established with the view that ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ This struggle continues well into the Twenty-First Century.

Because of the bipolar nature of societies and people; when a third-party forms, more established political entities gang against those upstarts.  Established parties may not coordinate efforts directly, though the result is the same.  Upstarts are pressed out. Historically, Libertarians could never quite take hold, because they’ve been overshadowed by Republicans – and fully resisted by Democrats.

Democrat supporters resist both Republicans and Libertarians as a pair of similar foes.  Libertarian supporters tend to vote Republican against Democrats.  To do otherwise would split votes, allowing Democrat candidates to gain superior votes.

Even the independent business tycoon in the 1992 election, Ross Perot, failed to become President, because Republicans and Democrats supporters ganged up against the upstart.  After the election, Republican supporters complained that Ross siphoned Republican votes more than Democrats, allowing Bill Clinton to become President.  That complaining showed the bipolar nature of the established voting system.  Republican supporters felt cheated, because people voted for someone else, as though people shouldn’t have voted for candidates they wanted.

This attitude continues to these days. Republican supporters in 2020 election felt they needed to press their dislike of results from the population by declaring that election invalid.  In doing so, they attempted to prevent the ability of each person of the nation to vote their conscience. Such pressures – as well as many others – undermine personal choice within societies.  The ruckus at the Capitol on 6 January 2021 came from the Us-Peoples becoming upset that the Them-People voted for candidates that wasn’t ‘Their Candidate.’  That view could be expressed by saying, ‘How could those ‘Other People’ vote for someone I despise?’

Such views and behavior are continuing into the mid-Twenty-First Century.  Unless corrected, these views and behavior will lead to further discontentment that may turn more violent than what was seen on 6 January 2021.

So, unless fundamental changes are established, no third party will gain footing and the binary nature of hatred will continue.

~ ~ ~

The two-party system forces other parties to the fringes, even if other political orders may be better for societies and unique populations.  They will continue to be victims of the bullying nature of the two primary parties.  Under current conditions, any third party will continue to fail, even though most of the population is looking for alternatives to the established prevalent parties.

It is clear, the established two parties will not easily relinquish their clutches on the political arena.  Even factions within each party struggle against established echelons that control each political order.

Some factions may hold minor influence within major parties—such as the Tea Party faction – though they have strict limitations.  Such factions may thrive on their own, if not for the bullying nature of the two established parties.  Other, smaller parties may continue to eke an existence at the fringes, though they have no true hope at influencing governance.

So, as long as factions remained merely entangled within major parties, they don’t have a fair chance to influence societies.  They could only whisper softly inside their primary party – hoping for scraps.  Should they press harder, they would be suppressed even more so.  That leaves less scrupulous people to bully others into submission, often destroying reputations of decent people in the process.  Many politicians have resorted to character assassination to crush opponents – a very ugly way to behave.

Many within populations may believe internal factions are a suitable solution to the bipolar society effect; however, the Tea Party is still subject to the RNC when it comes to their role within the Republican party and others have resorted to scandalous methods to grasp authority.

It has been becoming ugly, though there is a path towards better ways. Better ways won’t come easily, though it must occur, or peoples of societies will suffer at the hands of unscrupulous people.

~ ~ ~

Let us now consider the four-party conundrum. With the establishment of the Green party, we have a chance to review the nature of four parties in political arenas.  With four, that polarization effect takes place again.  The Green party seem to be a counterbalance to Libertarians and those supporters tend to vote Democratic for similar reasons that Libertarian supporters do so for Republican candidates.

Populations remain split and the bipolar society effect continues to dominate people’s decisions. Common sayings, like, ‘Voting beyond Republicans and Democrats is a wasted vote,’ are spoken by people holding bipolar views.  So, four parties failed to reduce the bipolar society problem.

Let’s progress to five parties. Well, the other four parties—two pairs of opposing forces—will gang against that outlier.  Five parties have a similar effect as three, and the bipolar result still prevails. Any fifth party rising higher in society has little chance of surviving and growing.

No matter how superior their concepts and views may be, the fifth party must struggle with larger entities, and pairing of similar parties will lean in favor of larger governing elements – no matter how inapt the larger parties are.  Echelons of larger parties would only have two be bigger bullies.  They would see any elevation of broader views as weakening their own influence on societies and would fight against all who would challenge them. For that reason again, the Tea Party remains a faction within the GOP and not become a bona fide political order.

Carrying this concept further brings us into uncharted territories. Six notable parties would seem to have a similar effect as three.  Democrats and Green Party supporters would help Republicans and Libertarians to gang up on the other two, much as the Republicans and Democrats ganged up on Ross Perot.  With two upstart parties fighting against four, people may think there would be more of a chance.  Again, we seem to be in uncharted territories; however, odds appear to be against two upstarts, since they are one of a pair against two-pairs.  Poker players would see the problem.

If not carefully applied, alignments will lead to polarization of populations again and again, and yet again.

~ ~ ~

Now we reached the magical seven political orders situation. With the established double-pairing—Republican-Libertarian and Democrat-Green—having three outliers disrupts the two-pair alignment.  Unlike poker hands, those three outliers don’t have to be alike or agree with each other. Should they be similar and agree, the three-party dynamic would likely take hold.

So, what do the three outliers do that disrupt the bipolar problem? They hold a form of active, fluid counterbalancing effect on the natural pairing, as long as they remain unique, with each having matching, leveled impact on societies as the larger four.

For this to function, the seven parties must have equal influence, even if smaller; hence equal votes for each political order in all layers of legislation and societies; a concept selfish people would find distasteful.  Those selfish people would cry out, ‘That’s not fair. We have more people.’

That argument is what gets societies into the bipolar situation in the first place and creates considerable harm throughout populations – especially for those conceived as minorities.  That notion of unfairness is perpetuated by bullies who want to further press their limited, constrictive views on others.  Those selfish people continue to do so by taking over societies and beating their views on those who may resist.  As shown earlier, those selfish parties of societies don’t have to be more than a quarter of the population to take control in our current political atmosphere of the early-Twenty-First Century.

~ ~ ~

Historically, those who wish to force their limited views on populations may not have literally beaten people – though many have.  More often though, they would destroy the economy and well-being of people, even taking property through warped legal wranglings that is paramount to outright theft.  Certain ethnic groups have become victims of such maneuvering, even to these days. Also targeting specific groups of people to incarcerate, removes rights of those persons to vote, reducing opposition.  It’s a simple matter to press a person into incarceration.

Throughout history, people who didn’t get their ‘political way‘ through proper ballot procedures resorted to extortion and manipulation through courts, restricting the ability of neighbors to vote, bullying and intimidating them from voting.  They even pressed their undeserving authority on others by excommunicating people, shunning them from society through various societal organizations – very often under the guise of faith.

There are many ways to destroy decent people, keeping them from voting. Legal courts are filled with cases brought by bullies who wish to destroy neighbors who are ‘uncooperative,’ pressing limited views on others, even stealing what other people worked hard to achieve, because they themselves didn’t ‘get their way.’

So, seven—equally applied parties—would allow less affluent groups of people to have a chance for balanced representation in governance; and in doing so, break the hold of two domineering orders.

As we’ve seen before in these examples, fewer numbers of governing orders will not have the same achievement.  A Seven Party, Approval Voting Method could solve many of the problems facing societies, if people stand and say, ‘We want fundamental changes in governance that won’t lead to a few domineering thugs to bully others into capitulation.’

~ ~ ~

As for eight, nine or more political parties; various pairings create bipolar effects again, with alliances allowing a few to bully others into submission, even absorbing smaller groups, as a way to reduce competition.

This is something that may occur with seven parties, though setting level authority will help societies prevent the manipulation bullies on societies.

Also, when there are more than seven political parties, people don’t see the loss of a few until their own choices have been restricted to such a level, they became victims of bipolar societies.  A pair of bickering orders removing competition rips opportunities from societies – and expressive variety within populations fail again.

More than seven political orders create a different form of confused bickering and dysfunction than the bipolar effect, where elevating seven viable political orders at equitable stature enables continuity with broader views, as long as people don’t become selfish about sharing authority with the unique masses.

Each and every governing person must be in position for the well-being of all unique peoples and having seven orders will give that chance, where lesser number of political orders would likely fail quickly.

Whether nationally or regionally, seven parties should have matching, leveled impact of authority – not a general representation of their portion of populations.  Doing so allows balancing of broader views with less chance of smaller groups becoming subjugated by the bullying bodies that are controlled by a few unscrupulous people.

Also, various nations and regions will have opportunities to elevate differing governing orders. Though some orders may be represented in several regions, even nations, others will have sway elsewhere.  In this way, no political party can dominate widespread populations.

Cross-party voting is also key for better governance. Since governing orders set people into authority, all residents of nations and regions who reached the age of commitment must be afforded the ability to vote for candidates within any and all political parties; otherwise, a few domineering people would take unworthy authority – something that had been occurring in the past.

Even though many will still say seven governing orders is too many, examples presented in this article has shown how it breaks the bipolar effect – something that needs to occur.

If we have seven parties, and anyone or group attempts to seize control, they will have to control four political orders against three to manipulate societies as a whole.  That is more difficult than controlling one of two, or two of three, or even four of six; hence another reason why seven political orders create a more democratic atmosphere.  As stated before, lower number of political orders disintegrate quickly into bipolar disorder.

Granted; seven political orders won’t last, if people ignore the bipolar effect and trap that societies tend to.  However, having seven political orders creates a resilience fewer political orders could withstand.  With a greater diversity of social-political orders acting for the benefit of diverse people, they could resist the problem of bipolar societies, preventing selfish entities from seizing control.

Other methods may do the same, though none have yet been presented that wouldn’t lead back to the bipolar effect.  All solutions that have surfaced so far are the same that had failed many times in the past. Let’s not repeat history.

~ ~ ~

So, seven is the magical number of political orders, as long as those seven orders retain equal influence on regions and nations.

How do we get there?  Well, we won’t within the environment of this early Twenty-First Century. If we’re to truly bring tranquility and balanced governance to societies, populations have to allow broader views of life ways to prosper, as well as form governance that allow all unique peoples to thrive.

To get to such an environment, the Approval Voting Method would have rapid, favorable results. Allowing each voter to have the ability to vote ‘Yea’ or ‘Nay’ for each candidate in all political parties and elections would break the Us-Them hold, because each person would be Us – not Them.

Approval Voting Method – or at least Rank Voting – would  be a simple matter to establish.  However, bringing seven viable parties into the folds would take greater effort, possibly establishing a fairness throughout populations and societies.  Integrating both aspects – Seven Leveled Parties and Approval Voting Method would go even further to prevent bullies from dominating societies.  This will not be easy, but the population should be allowed to make lives better for everyone – not just a few bullying thugs.

It’s up to us people to strive for better environments for all unique peoples.  If we do nothing to improve societies with broader views, then conflicts will continue to disrupt populations and most people will suffer for it.

A better future is possible, though not if societies continue favoring two political governing orders. Let us all work for a better future.

BCW-JZ

© April 2022