Name: Anonymous 2007-09-17 4:04 ID:xH434IH+
When people lobby for a law either it is accepted or it isn't. If the decision makers believe there is a better way the law will not be passed and the lobby will have to modify their policies so it gains more support.
So, to begin with, it is logical to have one party which argues to change things (the left) and another which argues to keep things the same (the right). Kings, emperors and despots in the past often had parliaments/senates split in 2 with the people who want change seated on the left and people who wanted things to be the same seated on the right. When tyrants were replaced by voters this system became impractical, the masses cannot attend parliament each day to listen to 100s of issues a year so instead they pledge their support for 1 party and let them have their way for a few years.
Because the resulting parties either want to change everything or want everything to stay the same they cannot create a rational manifesto which calculates what needs to change and needs to stay the same. Also the 2 major parties proceed to indoctrinate voters who agree with 1 of their policies to care about other issues in their favour, for instance the democrats aiming socialist propoganda at environmentalists. The population polarises.
A cycle occurs. The leftist government first removes the tyrant and his evil laws, however once there is nothing else it needs to get rid of it begins to change traditions that are rational and beneficial. Enough voters get sick of the lefty's ridiculous changes to vote in a rightist party and put an end to the stupidity. However as time goes on and the nation needs to adapt it becomes apparent that things need to change, voters vote out the stagnant righties and elect a leftist government to make the changes.
So, to begin with, it is logical to have one party which argues to change things (the left) and another which argues to keep things the same (the right). Kings, emperors and despots in the past often had parliaments/senates split in 2 with the people who want change seated on the left and people who wanted things to be the same seated on the right. When tyrants were replaced by voters this system became impractical, the masses cannot attend parliament each day to listen to 100s of issues a year so instead they pledge their support for 1 party and let them have their way for a few years.
Because the resulting parties either want to change everything or want everything to stay the same they cannot create a rational manifesto which calculates what needs to change and needs to stay the same. Also the 2 major parties proceed to indoctrinate voters who agree with 1 of their policies to care about other issues in their favour, for instance the democrats aiming socialist propoganda at environmentalists. The population polarises.
A cycle occurs. The leftist government first removes the tyrant and his evil laws, however once there is nothing else it needs to get rid of it begins to change traditions that are rational and beneficial. Enough voters get sick of the lefty's ridiculous changes to vote in a rightist party and put an end to the stupidity. However as time goes on and the nation needs to adapt it becomes apparent that things need to change, voters vote out the stagnant righties and elect a leftist government to make the changes.