Yes and No Pogo
I'm basically saying IF you are going to use party distinction, then if you look at the history
this can be interpreted both ways, and come out pretty even.
I totally agree with you that people are diverse even within parties.
There are Prolife Democrats who don't get counted or represented.
There are GAY Republicans who may or may not believe in same sex marriage through the govt,
some of the Conservative ones do NOT believe in implement or endorsing marriage at all, but argue to keep it separate from govt.
There are Black Republicans who believe in Reparations
and there are Black Democrats who don't. Etc. Etc.
However Pogo if we are going to organize people by political beliefs so each faction can represent themselves
under some form of organized collective govt (by district, state and national policy)
it makes sense to me to go with WHATEVER AFFILIATION people AGREE to take responsibility for.
So even if they believe in conflicting points or reforms against their current party platform,
if they AGREE to identify with that group, and take responsibility for corrections, reforms and even restitution for past abuses,
that's one way to organize people. And let THAT group, with all its "self proclaimed members" decide
how to resolve their OWN DIFFERENCES WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. that becomes the responsibility
of members WITHIN THAT GROUP (similar to letting people of a State work out their policy issues and disputes
to come out with a Statewide policy that represents all members of that STATE).
Of course there is going to be DIVERSITY within a State, and within a Party.
But as long as those members AGREE to participate in the local democratic process
and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for ensuring that State or Party platform represents THEM as well
as other people of that State/Party, why not use that structure to organize people?
If we can organize 50 States under one cohesive union and work out issues of "diversity,"
SURELY we can organize 5-20 PARTIES under one system and allow for DIVERSITY within the PARTIES.
