> >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.
I have no idea what you mean by that. There are two parties, they both have the same policies and there is no apparent way to influence those policies. Joining one of the parties would be useless, because the parties themselves (or at least the members of the parties) don't have any more say over the policy platforms of the candidates than anyone else. In fact it appears the parties don't even select the candidates.
In Australia, minority interests and political views are permitted to form political parties which can stand candidates in elections. Even if they don't have the numbers to win representation, the preferential ballot means the preferences of their voters often have an influence and the major party candidates have to at least pay lip-service to the minority views.
>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.
You don't really understand. When you assert that "primaries are often closed", I take it you mean to disparage the concept of a political party having the right to select its own candidates for elected office according to its own rules? But of course if a political party is not permitted to select its own candidates it can't even have nominal control over its political platform. The American system of forcing a political party to allow members of opposing political parties to have a say in the selection of its candidates is unique and bizarre.
>The worst of all systems on that score may be Britain, which has largely
>closed primaries combined with a first-past-the-post system.
Again, "closed primaries" is misleading and stupid. the American primary system of selecting candidates is a process that is blatantly designed to exclude political parties from the electoral system. What Americans understand as a political party is the result. But these things wouldn't pass muster as a political party anywhere else in the world, the rest of the world thinks of a political party as group of people who are organised behind a political manifesto, who stand candidates for elected office unified behind that manifesto.
This is impossible in the US, because the candidates aren't selected by the parties, but through a primary system where every man and his dog can vote on who a party's candidates will be. A political party can still have a manifesto, but there is no mechanism through which to present that manifesto to the people at an election.
Although the first past the post system is primitive and undemocratic, at least political parties can get their candidates on the ballot in Britain and control their own political platform. The US system would be a massive step away from democracy for Britain.
> 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.
True, unless the minorities are concentrated geographically.
>The US system has lots of problems due to corporate power and influence,
>but its electoral system has been rather accomodating to minority
>interests,
Codswallop. The electoral system in place is what causes the problem. If the people can't organise electorally, then obviously the political vacuum will be filled by corporate power.
Other places suffer from abuses of corporate power as well of course, its inevitable that economic power will often prevail over political power. But in jurisdictions with a meaningful democratic process at least there is some kind of popular political power that the ruling class needs to overcome. That isn't the case in the US, the people are effectively excluded from the political process because they can only participate as individuals, no meaningful form of political organisation is allowed.
> 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.
They just have the advantage of looking at it from the outside and comparing it to other systems.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas