US election system. Is the US really a democracy, or a duocracy?

[Figment]

As a dutch citizen, the US 'democracy' always makes you wonder. Just two parties, no distribution of votes on a ratio basis, but a system that represents a majorities in a state as one party dictatorial systems.

Like in the UK, this means that only a few parties can actually try and achieve a dominant vote. In the UK for the first time in eons a coalition government had to be formed with the party of Nick Clegg (who ironically is half-dutch).

Where in the UK you used to have the Torries and Labour, you have the same thing in the US where only one of two parties typically rules. In effect, the US is a dictatorship of two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. So basically... it's a Duocracy. Elected into office, yes, but don't ask how the election goes.

Imagine if a poll on these forums would end with ALL votes on the poll turning towards the minor minority and represented as being YOUR vote as well. Imagine for a second this is a poll about pro- and anti-BFR and pro-BFR. Pro-BFR gets 47% votes, anti BFR gets 45% of the votes and neutral gets 8% of the votes. By the winner takes all rule, the forum dictates that 100% of the votes went to the pro-BFR.

Wouldn't you cry out in anger at the vote being rigged? Wouldn't you go out and demand the poll is labeled illegitimate?

Why isn't there a huge demand for actual representative elections where every vote counts equally? Why is it that it is possible for rigging of elections where in certain states votes from certain minorities do not count or voting booths have problems?

How is it even possible that the US calls this system a democracy? Elections are not enough surely? Because then most African nations have democracies. Two choices comes down to not having a choice. You then vote for the least worst thing that might win, even if you don't really support it. Is that democracy?

See, as a dutch person, we may have a monarchy, (which are more stable, neutral and cheaper than presidents thankfully), but we have a constitution that allows for a democracy in terms of populace representation. We have up to 17 different parties with all shades of the political spectrum participate in the elections and majorities are formed by coalitions. This means that it is more likely you can actually find a party that represents your views better than a "social rightwing" and "conservative rightwing" (which is what is the case in America, there isn't a left wing really out of fear of being labeled communist) and also means that not just one dictatorial view dominates the government. They keep each other in check.

Why is it the average American doesn't care? Just because it's always been that way? Just because they've been told it's not good for them by the parties in charge, apparently the Republicans in particular?



Imagine for instance if your campaigns would be split in four, or seven different political parties which could all make it to the senate. Imagine that one of these would be the tea party for religious nut jobs (20%), one would be liberals, one for socialists, one moderate conservatives, one more business oriented, one green party and one a bit in the middle of everything. Hell you can have more. Chances of a Tea Party fruitcake actually making it into office or getting control of the majority of votes would be extremely low and you could make coalitions that are less polarised. Those extremist thoughts would have to be tempered in coalitions to not lose out on a chance of governing. Wouldn't that be a lot more attractive?

In fact, all the political slander and lies, the kicking and mud slinging that you have in US elections would be much less, because they need each other after the elections. Btw, doesn't anyone care that candidates like Santorum blatantly lie about things just to keep extremists on board? (Basically all he said about the Netherlands save us being in Europe was an outright and verifiable lie - how can candidates that lie or don't even know their own political agenda even be considered an option?). Hell, they would have to know much more about subjects and get good arguments before decisions are being made on topics. Just because they have to debate with other people to get a majority vote.


So why no representative elections?