some notes; contributions to the discussion are welcome.

With the advent of the Internet, the political parties have seen gradually liquefying the intermediate structures that were justified by the friction determined by geographic constraints.

these intermediate structures were essential for organising consensus, obtaining feedback and to select managing members. they allowed the number of people involved in the complexity of political decisions to be extended

by skipping geography and communicating directly, these functions have disappeared, ways and times of building consensus and mediation have vaporised leading to fragmentation; the political message has become trivialized becoming even more polarized and appealing to emotions; the electorate has become more mobile and the parties more likely to be election cartels for a leader.

at least a couple of problems arise:

the first is that the internal governance of parties becomes more critical, internal conflicts increase, instability is exacerbated and the resilience of compromises is reduced
the second is that voting systems that reward the relative majority (first-past-the-post systems or systems with majority prizes) favour the election of people with extreme positions, with a (fragmented) majority opposing them. (Post-truth is a consequence)

If it’s true that the internet is the enzyme that has catalyzed these processes, exacerbating these trends, it is also true that time cannot be reveresed and a no solution can avoid using technology, even in internal governance of the parties, which is probably the first point on which to intervene.