>The rule of law and constitutional restraints on democratic rule is
>an essential element of democracy. Minorities must be protected
>against the excesses of the majority. But this isn't enough,
>minorities also need some input into political government as well.
>They don't in the US and as a result the US is the very weakest form
>of democracy. Hardly a democracy at all.
What a ridiculous statement. Both parties are made up of a range of minority groups that jockey for position-- the NAACP, latino groups, enviros, the religious right, the NRA, ad nauseum. Each party is a coalition of groups who jockey for power within the coalition through primaries and other methods. The silliness of the Greens and Nader is that they think running in the general election is the only way to influence politics, when quite obviously the openness of US primaries gives groups the ability for similar influence.
Compare this to most European systems, where primaries are often closed but proportional representation allows parties to then negotiate for power AFTER the election, as opposed to during the primaries as happens in the United States.
The worst of all systems on that score may be Britain, which has largely closed primaries combined with a first-past-the-post system. Minority rights get little chance to have any electoral expression, except in the barest of effect if they happen to be a swing vote between the Tories and Labour.
The US system has lots of problems due to corporate power and influence, but its electoral system has been rather accomodating to minority interests, to the point that many political scientists often criticize it for being too much the hostage of single-issue groups. I don't really buy the criticism as it's usually made, but I am continually confounded that third-party style critics of the system have a completely impoverished analysis of the role of primaries in shaping American politics.
Nathan newman