That would be great, Sakshi. You are a good writer already. : - )
Of course, the building we call democracy has more than a single floor. But the basement/the foundation layer is the fundamental and most important one.
You are right that politics contains forces that can pull us apart, but a smart system unites not just for the sake of uniting, but for the sake of uniting for the largest number of people in a nation.
I have used the pyramid in the past as a tool to explain the difference between the two democratic systems in the world (there are various forms of them, even some mixed forms).
The Egyptian pyramid is the winner-take-all pyramid. From four sides, folks (read: political ideals) can start climbing the pyramid. In top, however, the Egyptian pyramid has place for one person (ideal) only. While moving toward the top, the various ideals battle with each other to make one additional step moving up, and fewer (full) connections are retained with those at ground level. At best, the single person reaching the top will have two different ideals in mind, a compromise. But the person will not consider more than two political ideals and will likely be strong-minded about just that person's own political ideals/party.
Contrast this with the Mexican pyramid. Here, too, folks (political ideals) start climbing the pyramid from four sides. But unlike the Egyptian pyramid, this pyramid has a truncated top. A platform is reached by representatives from all four sides, and here the ideals duke it out with one another. At minimum two ideologies will end up compromising, no one will ever make it alone. This is therefore a pyramid that makes folks work together. Three sides of the political spectrum can and sometimes will cooperate as well. Four sides is even possible, but not likely.
The United States is a large and important nation. We should never end up with a twenty-party system. We need stability. But we also need political freedom and our system of divide-and-conquer does not deliver the freedom of being represented at the table. Right now, it is a game first, and restricted representation next.
* I am hoping for change at the local level first (easiest to put in place, and full proportional does not create any problems here, not a single political problem).
* The state level can be next (change is already allowed and I am hoping this is where we will implement the German system, which is our American system in origin but improved, leading to a limited number of parties — but always more than two).
* Finally, the Federal level. This is hardest to change and we need a groundswell of experience first before this can get changed. It cannot (let me say that twice: cannot) be changed at this point in time or with current political conditions. In no one's lifetime can real change occur here first.
Lastly, I want to warn for the two Machines. They adjust to the cries from society (since they do not take the lead and truly wait for folks to cry out loud). They adjust then after too many cries, but this is superficial only, so they can remain in full control.
The prime example is San Francisco, where the voting system was changed back from at-large to district voting (I believe this was meant to keep the Green Party from getting seats; it was really popular all of a sudden and Democrats jumped ship back then to become Green Party leaders).
At-large is semi-proportional (with some ugly mistakes in it, but more honest than winner-take-all) and, at the time the system got changed, there were 5 female and 6 male supervisors sitting on the board. With the new district elections: 1 female and 10 male supervisors. The ugly face of winner-take-all was exposed once again. My surprise: no one said a thing -- not a peep. It was so obvious what had happened. All districts started afresh, and the usual winners won (males), because the winner-take-all system makes people more likely to choose a person they think can beat up the competition best. It is an aggressive system. Plus, only a handful need to think this way to make the win go that way because… it is winner-take-all, the small center block of voters decides.
It took a few election cycles and other opportunities for the board to end up in a natural balance. But this allowed me to see the grooming that the Machine did. They ended up making the board have that natural balance of males and females.
The district system is still the same mechanism, however, and it is just the top layer of representation that got fixed to appear as if all folks are represented. Completely not true of course, because the ones not getting their specific political ideals expressed only see their look-alikes in the seats, not their think-alikes. This is Manchurian Candidate par excellence, but the enemy is not a foreign nation but our two parties in their controlling (brainwashing) capabilities. Don't read this as my throwing everything out that the two parties stand for and do. Not at all. Yet where political freedom is concerned, they do not care about it. They will not educate the population at large about what is wrong with the system that gives them their sole powers.
So, a fair warning about the two Machines. They will spin and spin and spin until folks are dizzy and don't know what direction they are walking in anymore.
Let me know how I can be of help, Sakshi. If you mention what angles you will use to approach this, I may have materials to support your words.
