Actually in that regard it would hardly be different. The DNC would chose its leader and you would chose whether to vote for THEM rather than HIM. Not even sure there
is a practical difference, maybe you could explain it to me.
It’s an error of parallelism. The parallel to the GOP is the Democratic Party. The parallel to the DNC is the RNC. So when you said
it was jarring, because the GOP is a party, while the DNC is a committee. But like I said it is not a complete error because in essence, under a party list system you essentially would be voting for the DNC-approved list of candidates. But then it would have been clearer to say “So the RNC and DNC would get about 15%? Perhaps not a representative selection of the American public.”
In a true democracy, there would be no political parties and no candidates. Everyone would vote on every issue.
Ah, gotcha. Thanks.
At the moment, the Libertarians and the Green Party would be able to form a government. I’d assume the L party would get the majority of the positions, but a reasonable negotiation would probably land the Greens with positions regarding enviroment, energy and infrastructure, while the L would get the economic and social areas.
Democrats and Libertarians would theoretically be able to form Government but I think the ideological differences are too vast for a fruitful cooperation.
I know, that’s my point. Why are you singling out the US?
Not true, there are other candidates. The fact that they are not viable doesn’t meant they don’t exist.
TBH, I am not a huge fan of the two-party system, but your communism analogy is so weird and inept that I’ve decided not to take your point seriously.
I guess that’s why you gave the thread what you confess to be an “inflammatory” title—because you were hoping it wouldn’t get derailed over which system is better?
No vote cast in protest of the cheap shot.
Since we’re in fantasyland, I’d vote for the Progressive Party.
They’re like the Democrats, but anti-corporation.
Moving debate disguised as poll to Great Debates.
That does happen with caucuses though. In the democratic party there are various caucuses like the black caucus, hispanic caucus, progressive caucus, etc.
I don’t know enough about the GOP and their caucuses. But in the democratic party about 1/3 of the members of the House are members of the progressive caucus. And they threatened to not vote for health reform unless it had a strong public option.
At the same time conservative democrats in the senate formed a caucus and threatened to not vote for it if there was a public option. Plus the conservative democratic caucus in the house (the blue dog caucus) has about 50 members and said the same thing.
So we get the same results in the US. Within the democratic party there is a progressive caucus and conservative caucus at each other’s throats.
As far as who I’d vote for in a parliamentary system, I’d probably stick to candidates in the socialist, green and democratic parties for political roles (president, senator, etc), however I don’t feel comfortable saying I’d be 100% green or 100% socialist. My votes would be split among those 3 parties based on the candidates and their views. And I’d likely vote libertarian for all of the law enforcement positions (jailer, sheriff, attorney general, etc).
So I’d end up voting for 4 different parties based on the candidates. I doubt I’d ever vote GOP.
I have to agree. In a pure democracy, the majority could and would tyranize the minority.
Democracy isn’t an end in itself. It’s a means to an end: a peaceful, prosperous, just and fair society. We already have limits on democracy, such as rights and protections for minorities.
I’m singling out the US because the handler in my sleeper cell told me it was the first step in our jihad.
Or it’s because this is a mainly US forum and it makes sense to discuss the US system here. But if you like we could discuss another countrys political system. I can’t guarantee that I am very knowledgable on the issue though.
And if you think the communism analogy is inept, what if I told you that you’re just one god away from being an atheist?
Yeah… but curtailing democracy is usually not a good sign. And I’d rather live in a poor democracy (like Malta) than a prosperous dictatorship (like Qatar).
Cool. While I was googling I found out that I live in the most democratic country in the world. 
You live in Sweden?
checks location
Yay, I got it right.
If it wasn’t so cold, I’d move there.
As for the OP: although I could understand it being representative, a “true” democracy would not have parties. It pretty much guarantees that I’ll vote for things I don’t want to vote for. This means that my opinion is not heard. Multiply that by ever person in the US, and you’d still find just as many people not getting what they want out of government.
As for the poll, a neutral version would be more like “Which party do you most identify with? Which one is closest to your ideals? If you could pick (only) one party to have a majority in both Houses, and the presidency, which one would you pick?” My vote goes to that question.
I think foreigners sometimes get confused about our system. First, our system wasn’t made to accomodate political parties. Political parties came about naturally, as they always do, but they had to set themselves up outside the system. Legally, political parties don’t have much power, at least not compared to systems where parties are integral to the system.
I’m probably not being clear enough here. I’m guilty of that a lot. So let’s compare the US system to a Parliamentary system. Take the vote on health care. In say, Britain, if a Labor member voted against health care, they could be expelled from the party, could they not? Aren’t party members often required to vote a certain way unless “released”? In the US, everyone is free to vote how they please and no one can be expelled from a party. Neither is there an entrance requirement. You are a Democrat if you say you are a Democrat. Nothing more is required.
Secondly, American political parties are big tents, historically overlapping each other on the political spectrum. A centrist can credibly belong to either party. Our elections are a lot like tournaments with two brackets: a bunch of lefties and centrists competing for the Democratic nomination, and a bunch of righties and centrists competing for the Republican nomination. So it’s not as if we don’t have choices. Almost all of the attributes people look for in a third party are at least partly represented in one of the existing parties unless it’s a truly fringe view.
Finally, if we wanted to get serious, we could strike a big blow against political parties: we could simply lobby our state legislatures to have all ballots printed without party affiliation listed. A town in North Carolina did this, although the Democratic Party sued them and won(I guess they figure their voters won’t know who to vote for otherwise?) But there is no constitutional right to have your party catered to by helpfully listing it on a ballot.
Republican of course. The Democrats are far too liberal and Libertarians are stuck in a nineteenth century Jeffersonian mindset.
The repubs are just a tool of big money and big business. They do not have the well being of the nation in their platforms.
The dems are too easy to fold under lobbying pressure. While they may actually state they have the correct values, it rarely comes to fruition.
The Libertarians are the most illogical, small minded, selfish and unrealistic people in politics. They are repubs on steroids with a vigilante ethic tossed in.
That leaves me with Green. At least they have an honest appraisal of what damage we are doing to our health and the planet.
Problem is, the Greens are downright Luddite when it comes to economic issues. They also border on authoritarian.