Political Parties Are A Threat To How We Think

• The very existence of political parties causes unnecessary divisions within society. The word ‘party’ derives from the Old French word ‘partie’ meaning ‘side, part; portion, share; separation, division’. There are natural divisions, such as differing interests, perspectives, and identities; politics should exist to mediate such divisions. When True Democracy transfers legislative power from political parties to the Electorate, the importance of, and therefore the divisions caused by, parties will be decreased. 
• The division caused by the party system is worsened by the maliciousness that each party uses to succeed. They lie about their opponents and their beliefs. They exaggerate their own accomplishments and exaggerate the failures of their opponents. They shift blame from themselves and they throw unfair blame on others. They spread fear about their opponents which, at its worst, can lead to assassinations and riots. The problem isn’t necessarily the people in politics the problem more so is the winner-takes-all party system that encourages desperate and vicious behaviour.
• Political parties name-call their opponents (and therefore their voters), and many people imitate their vocabulary. For example, Tories disparagingly call Labour ‘left-wing’ and Labour disparagingly call Tories ‘right-wing’. This is despite the fact these parties both have positions that are popularly considered ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’. They both support abortion, arms sales, corporate tax avoidance, faith schools, gay marriage, hate speech laws, Israel, privatised rail, gun control, low interest rates, mass immigration, a minimum wage, a mixed economy, the monarchy, the NHS, no-fault divorce, nuclear deterrence, parliamentary democracy, the prohibition of capital punishment, share buybacks, unemployment benefits, university tuition fees, water privatisation, et al. The issue with labelling people left-wing or right-wing is that no-one is sincerely ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ on every issue. If such people existed, labelling them as such wouldn’t be an issue. If there are people that sincerely believe everything popularly considered ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’, I have never come across one, it’s because they are conforming to a tribe and not thinking for themselves. Reason cannot be the primary motivation for such a person believing everything one wing does because the positions adopted by each wing changes over time. For example, supporting free-speech was once popularly associated with the ‘left-wing,’ now it’s commonly associated with the ‘right-wing’. Because of changes such as the decline in religion’s popularity and the introduction of the contraceptive pill, mainstream culture has become more ‘liberal’. ‘Liberals’ have used their newfound power in the mainstream to promote their ideas of good and evil, silencing those that disagree with them, just like how ‘conservatives’ used to. ‘Conservatives’ now want to protect free-speech in order to have a chance at retaliating. Both tribes changed their positions on free-speech for their own betterment, not out of principle. If people stopped mislabelling others with these terms, they’d find people have more in common than they may have thought. This terminology originated in the French Revolution and had a specific and therefore useful meaning; those on the right supported the French monarchy and those on the left supported the revolution. If a label has a specific meaning and is used accurately then it is fair, but these labels have no substance in our time and are therefore unnecessary divisions that we can resolve simply by not using them. I hope that as True Democracy lessens the importance of political parties the usage of these terms may finally be left behind and we can view one another as individuals instead of as embodiments of irrelevant labels. 
• People can anchor into a group for one reason and then adopt the rest of that groups’ beliefs because of loyalty without critical thinking. That initial reason for anchoring into a group is often motivated by sentimentality; it will likely be related to part of their identity, such as their sexuality, religion, or ethnicity. For example, someone that identifies as homosexual is more likely to support a ‘left-wing’ party than a ‘right-wing’ party. They are then likely to adopt other ‘left-wing’ stances even if they have nothing to do with homosexuality like supporting the mitigation of climate change because they engage more with ‘left-wing’ media figures, considering them more congenial and trustworthy than ‘right-wing’ media figures. The same phenomenon occurs when a Christian chooses a ‘right-wing’ party then disagrees that climate change is largely man-made. Group loyalty becomes important to their personal identity, giving their life purpose and belonging. Criticism towards the group and their beliefs, no matter how polite, feel like personal insults towards their intelligence and morality, and feel like a threat to the group that gives the individual a sense of purpose and belonging. Their group loyalty discourages them from thinking rationally about criticism towards their beliefs.
• Partisan motivated reasoning (p.17) can be powerful because an individual’s party identification “raises a perceptual screen through which the individual tends to see what is favourable to his partisan orientation”. Upon encountering political objects such as a well-known politician or an issue, automatic affective responses will activate directional goals leading to motivated reasoning: the tendency that citizens seek out new evidence that is consistent with their prior views, evaluate attitude-consistent arguments as stronger, and spend considerable energy in denigrating arguments that run counter to existing beliefs. Many studies demonstrate that partisans show dramatic differences in their perceptions and interpretations of key political events such as economic changes and war, prior attitudes colour the evaluations of arguments and subsequent search for information, and citizens are willing to spend more time and effort on processing information in order to reach conclusions consistent with their party identification.
• The prioritisation of electoral success often leads political parties to support contradictory policies, as they attempt to balance policies they’re most passionate about and policies they must support to be popular with voters. The influence the parties have encourages some members of the public to also support these contradictory positions. Contradictory policy goals lead to a state of confusion and frustration when one is achieved whilst the other is not. An example of a party with contradictory policy goals is one that supports capitalism and claims to be socially conservative. Capitalism is a force for social change, it is not a force for social conservatism.  Capitalism’s perpetual demand for growth leads to, amongst other things, encouraging more women to work (which discourages the creation of traditional family structures) and it encourages materialism (which is discouraged by all major religions). People don’t hold contradictory beliefs just because of political parties. People hold contradictory beliefs because of careless thinking and we sometimes want two incompatible things at once. Decreasing the influence of political parties through True Democracy will discourage the careless thinking they perpetuate and the contradictory policies they enforce, and will encourage voters to adopt policy positions that better compliment one another.

The Competency of the Electorate

• Anti-democrats claim the Electorate lack the knowledge to vote competently in comparison to politicians. Perhaps, they think this because a higher proportion of politicians graduate from university in comparison to the Electorate, or because politicians have more time to study legislation than the Electorate, or because of the prestigious career backgrounds many politicians have. However, it’s difficult to understand how these factors would mean the judgement of politicians on legislation is better for the Electorate than the Electorate’s own judgement. There is a vast range of issues covered by legislation that no university education or career background can fully prepare one for, nor are there enough hours in the day for an individual to study each issue in depth. Politicians and the Electorate rely primarily on second-hand knowledge to find the likely implications of technical pieces of legislation such as that relating to finance, and tend to rely primarily on personal beliefs for sensitive issues such as those relating to identity. The most concerning difference is the decision-making of politicians is corrupted by donors, the revolving door between the corporate world and the government, cash for access. A 2019 survey found the vast majority of MPs believe they are elected “to act according to their own judgement, even when this goes against the wishes of their constituents”. Not that MPs have any idea what the wishes of their constituents are. After all, has your MP ever asked for your opinion on anything? How could they act according to our wishes even if they wanted to? They don’t even pretend to care. What’s to say their judgement is better than the Electorate’s? The government could be filled with the country’s most knowledgeable people, but their knowledge is dangerous if they place their own interest above the public’s. Politicians seeking knowledge from businesses to assist with legislation decisions is not inherently bad for the public, but there is a risk it will be bad because the Electorate are excluded from the decision-making process. Perhaps, some people imagine True Democracy will result in the Electorate’s decision-making abilities being overwhelmed by the vast amount of votes that they can partake in, but I think this is unlikely to occur. True Democracy doesn’t oblige anyone to vote. True Democracy gives the Electorate the option to vote on legislation. Under True Democracy, you can abstain completely, or you can vote only on matters that pique your interest which may potentially only happen once or twice a year.
• Another common criticism from anti-democrats is that the electorate cannot be trusted to vote competently because they’re easily manipulated. However, this argument is flawed: susceptibility to manipulation is a universal human trait, not unique to voters. In fact, politicians are more vulnerable to manipulation than the public. Although voters may be swayed by propaganda, politicians are additionally manipulated by political donations, gifts, conformity to further their career in their party, intimidation from a small but vocal minority, and promises of employment. In fact, governing political parties are the greatest force for manipulation by means of propaganda, the national curriculum, and laws.
• Voters have more skin in the game than politicians: if there is a war, it’s the voters that will go to fight, it’s the voters that will see their loved ones go to fight, politicians don’t go to war. Politicians earn multiple times more than the average person so are more immune to rising prices and stagnant wages. Whilst having more skin in the game, the Electorate also have the benefit of voting anonymously. They they don’t need to conform to perceived majority opinion on sensitive issues, as the votes of the Electorate are anonymous unlike that of politicians.

How to Improve the Electorate’s Decision-Making

• Anti-democrats complain that voters lack the competency to have the right to vote. If the Electorate are incompetent at political decision-making, it’s because they’re the victims of a dictatorship that excludes them from every decision. It should come as no surprise if many people are not well-informed in political matters. I understand why some people don’t bother informing themselves. The government never asks for their opinion, so why would they bother wasting their time on learning about something when their opinion will be ignored? Conspiracy theories are popular because the government excludes the Electorate from every decision. It’s inevitable that people will theorise about what the government is doing. If the government are displeased by conspiracy theories, they only have themselves to blame for excluding people from the decision-making process. The government is, by definition, conspiring. Current political discussions are infected with drama, scandals, and slander. The more of there is of this, the less there is of substantive policy discussion. I hope True Democracy will encourage people to focus more on policy issues and less on the entertainment aspect of politics. Representative Democracy encourages people to think more about political figures than political ideas, because this form of democracy only allows you to vote on political figures.
• At the beginning of secondary school, students should be taught critical thinking. Currently, they’re only told what to think.  The teaching should be apolitical, as information from authority will intimidate students into conformity, and will inevitably lead to parents disputing what is being taught which will distract from the main purpose of these classes which is how to think.  They should be taught at least the following.
• How to evaluate the providers of information. To question if the provider has an incentive to lie. To question their track record. To question if the information is verifiable. To question if the information provides the full context. They should be made aware of free, academic resources, and discouraged from relying solely on news media. They should be made aware of the news media’s tendency to be sensationalist.
• They should be encouraged to self-reflect and understand why they have the opinions they have. They should question if their opinions are based on assumptions. They should be encouraged to seek multiple viewpoints. They should  learn the reasoning behind opinions they disagree with.
• They should be taught how statistics can be misleading when shown out of context. They should be taught how the teaching of history can be manipulated for the purpose of propaganda. They should be shown examples of policies that had unintended consequences.
• They should be made aware of fallacies, such as false dilemmas, appeal to emotion, and straw man arguments. They should be taught the differences between causation and correlation. They should be made aware of biases, such as anchoring biases and confirmation biases.