FUCK YEAH DEMOCRACY

Whats up with US-democracy

>2 major partys, both shit

>tiny partys who nobody votes for biggest of those also shit

Amerifags explain

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9UH2XikAw4w
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Independents aren't a party. Trump claimed he was one at the first GOP debate.

well even worse

Not giving loyalty to one single party is worse?

Republic, not a democracy, medkit.

Can you imagine if we had 4 or 5 though?

>oy those evil white men with their hate speech and their guns and borders. they must be stopped! even this based spic senator and old man mccain are for these poor poor dreamers and this sensible hate speech reform

the shot would get jewed over so quick with all the grievances working together to shit on evil american traditionalism

constitutional republic please, and this is a form of democracy

A republic is a democracy you colossal brainlette

i cant imagine having just 2, like wtf am i supposed to do having 2 options is nothing, do it right and just have one or get a real democracy

It just means that the coalitions that would form within parliament form within the parties themselves. So it winds up center left vs center right anyway, due to the need to achieve a majority vote.

Also, the candidates are chosen in primaries, not by the party itself. So you can win a seat with the democrats as a socialist or green, or as a nationalist or christian with the republicans.

So if we say a far-rigth nationalist won the elections and wants to reform the gouvernement he couldnt because the democrats dont want it, some republicans probably also so hes fucked because he has no Party

A. Because a simple majority (plurality) wins presidential election, this leads to a two-party system.

B. Because wealth/power is highly concentrated, this means it's easy for elites to control both parties.

C. Rampant ignorance, stupidity, and apathy.

first real answer, but is there a more complex one?

But if he were elected to a parliament as his parties sole representative he would have to make the same kinds of compromises with the same kinds of centrists to achieve anything.

He could campaign for Trump Republicans or Tea Party Republicans or Bernie Democrats in the primaries to try to build a power base, which amounts to the same thing.

Every single democracy ends up this way, and it's not a bad thing.

>Lots of opinions
>One party manages to represent enough of them to push out all the others
>Another party manages to represent enough counter-arguments to effectively rival it

Democracy is another word for power balancing, the will of a nation's people is always realised through democracy.
The question isn't whether democracy works or doesn't work-it works exactly as intended.

The question is whether the will of the masses is worth listening to, and who deserves to have their voice heard.

Why do you even need a president? like wtf for what is he usefull, we dont realy have one, we have the Bundesrat with 12 People who have equal political power, and one Bundespresident who has the same power as everyone else in the Bundesrat

Also why dont they just call republicans-capitalists

An outsiders rarely win the most votes anyway. Germany has more than two parties but the Chancellor/PM since WW2 has always been one of two major parties.

>why do you need something we don't have
Why does every Euro think their specific tiny ass country is the pinnacle of human society?

Switzerland is democractic since almost 800 years but we dont have a 2 party system and is know as best democracy there is

And a Republic prevents rule of the mob. Especially on in which the Rights of the Individual are the highest priority. There was a time just a few decades ago when every ninth grader had this figured out. Then Howard Zinn. Now we have trannies chopping their dick off.

Well, we have three branches that each have their respective duties and powers, and are system was made where they were intended to be checked by one another so no one branch could rule the others. The president is the head of the executive branch. He has the ability to veto bills brought through Congress, amount other things.

do you mean executive, judicative and legislative because every country has those branches

Yes, I do. And every country does not have those branches.

yes every country has them in some they are just controlled by one person

>he thinks there are as many as two parties
Stay enslaved.

Your country is half the size of Arizona with less people than the LA basin. It's like a redskin tribe touting the success of communal living as a model for modern societies.

It's almost as if countries/governments/populations have an optimal size. Really makes me think.

Maybe, or maybe some cultures just can't make federalism work. The U.S. has direct democracy at the state level, but not nationally. That's why Sup Forums is mostly a 'states rights' for the U.S. board.

so my country works better than yours because its small

Do you think the EU would work if only they adopted your system?

well it worked for us, i mean we were the only nation in europa who didnt cuck to a dictator and we survived ww2 even tho we are french, italian and german

trick question the eu dosent work, and no because the eu isnt a country

Do you think Somalia would work if it adopted your system?

what do mean with work, it works here it would work in every country, but it dosent magicaly fixes all problems, i personaly hate our system, i would choose an totalitarian form of governement

organised Pirates would be cool though

Because Americans worship money. It's the biggest cultural priority here, but it keeps us from killing each other

It's because the US has winner-takes-all elections. It means that if there were 2 left parties and 1 right party, the vote of the left party would be split in half, meaning the right party would win.

Thus, the nature of the system means that 2 major parties is the natural final result. Only 2 parties can muster the necessary funding, brand-name recognition, and political power to remain. All 3rd parties are squelched, both by the voters (who don't want their vote split) and the financial backers (same story). They never win anything except perhaps a few state and local races, and they certainly never wield any sort of power. 3rd party attempts, such as the Libertarian party and the Green party have been laughable. Their nominees have been C-tier politicians of cringe-inducing stupidity.

youtube.com/watch?v=9UH2XikAw4w

There have been times when 3rd party candidates have a real chance of winning, but this is only when they are super high profile heavy-hitters. Such as the billionaire Ross Perot in the 90's (he dropped out of the race midway through, then rejoined the race later. He ended up splitting the Republican vote and handing the election to Bill Clinton. People speculate if he hadn't dropped out, he could have won).

Thus, in the US system, a majority of the political debate happens within the internal politics of each party. And since these parties are technically private entities, it means that they can decide their nominees however they want, regardless of what the voters think. For example, if Bernie Sanders had won the Democrat nomination, they easily could have given it to Hillary anyway.

The Founding Fathers actually hated the concept of political parties, their original intention was to have people running on their own without any party apparatus.

This is different than the Parliamentary system, where power is shared between numerous parties. There is no vote-splitting, thus you can have 20 major parties if you wanted. The issue here is that the Parliamentary system adds another layer of government, the Prime Minister is elected by the people you elect. This means that the government is less accountable to the people

For example, if the US president tried to do the shit that Merkel did, he'd be out the door in 4 years. But as it is, getting Merkel out of power is going to be harder than tearing your foot out of a bear trap. It's gonna take a massive shift in political attitudes. As you can see in this system, the people have far less direct control over who is leading them

Every system has it's upside, and it's downside. Nobody has found the perfect system yet