Uh, CC? The US is ALSO a multiparty system. It has two parties, hence it's multi. The alternative is one-party system, AKA dictatorship of one party, like the former SU and Iraq.
Your message is written in a most confusing manner. I can't make heads or tails of it. I'm too lazy to reply to such vague points too, so I'll just copy some points I made on an Asshats-debate a while back;
I've always considered the American presidential elections to be a sham and I think your country has a serious problem if people are that disinterested in democracy [low turnout]. The only thing worse is the EU parliamentary elections.
Dutch elections tend to have a turnout of around 80% for national elections (which elects pretty much everything), 60% for local elections (which only elect city council and the 1st chamber)
(...)
Besides which, being "allowed to decide your own leader" can mean a number of things. Holland used to have a form of king-elect, where a number of the people could elect from a small group of elite counts. Say, for argument's sake, that all people could vote on which noblemen to pick, would you call them free? Their choice was restrained to a number of noblemen.
(...)
A better system than electoral college? That's easy, the Rhineland model applied to Belgium, Holland and Germany. Fairly proportional representation in a parliament, a majority of which than elects the president or premier seems a lot more fair than having two parties rule between the two of them for centuries.
Heck, the presidency isn't even the worst bit of it, the worst bit is the Congress and even more so the Senate. Only two, maybe three, parties in the entire fucking parliament? Are you guys nuts? That's not even close to representing the will of the people, no wonder half of them don't vote.
And the Senate, what the hell is up with that? 2 seats for every state? That, in effect, means that the vote of a person from a thinly-populated state is MORE IMPORTANT than that of a person from a heavily-populated state. That is discrimination by location. How the hell is that democratic?
(...)
That doesn't mean there's no better or worse. Freedom of speech is also always impeded, that doesn't mean communist-style oppression is the same kind of limitation as the copyright laws or confidentiality laws bring into freedom of speech.
In the same sense, I truely believe there are better systems available to the US than the 200-year old system in effect right now. For Christ's sake people, wake up, it's the 21st century and you're still living off of a 18th century system! I think the current US system has served its due. Look at the general protest against the president lately. Look at the fact that the last two elections were generally referred to as "picking between two evils". Heck, almost half the people don't bother to show up to pick their own bloody leader!
That doesn't mean it HAS to be like that. Other options are possible. Of course these are limited by the fact no sane Republican or Democrat would actually change the system and thus limit his own power.
(...)
Yes, I admit, the good thing about the Senate is that they have a lot less power than Congress. This seems to imply that someone at some point in American history realised the Senate will be outdated some day.
Now don't get me wrong, the Senate was a brilliant move in its day. Only in this way, by creating a house where every new state could get the same number of representatives and thus not feel left behind could the US expand without any disintegration worse than that of the Civil War. Without such brilliant moves early on, without the policy of "new states are part of the country, not colonies", the US would never have lasted or grown so fast. I applaud it and find it one of the most brilliant political moves in history
That said, history moves forward and so does politics. Quite frankly I simply don't see how the Senate could fit in a modern nationstate anymore.
As for that nutcase party, look at it this way; if a relevant portion of the population (around 1.5% in their case) thinks these things, they should have the right to have someone represent this opinion in parliament. Granted, there are limits to this political freedom, though it's tough for Holland. Holland is one of the most political free countries in the world, we've had fascists and commies in parliament aplenty since it was founded and every time a debate arises if the constitutional articles that forbid such parties don't weigh more heavily than article 7, which states any political party, group etc. has total and unhindered freedom of speech (which is seperate from general freedom of speech, for some reason).
That said, if you don't like it you can make other choices than Holland and forbid all unconstitutional parties. That's still a damn sight better than the two-party system you have now.
(...)
Not by default, no, but say the coalition making the government are Christians and Social Democrats, and the Social Democrats want to do something too socialist for the Christians. If they play their cards right, they can get support from the parties further to the left, Greens and more extreme Social Democrats and still get it passed under a majority vote.
No, you don't always get your own way, but I'm afraid politics is more complex than one big block majority always getting its own way. These minorities question the government, can ask for investigations to be done on stuff they don't trust, etc. etc.
(...)
Yes it does, because a brake on extremism forced down by law as is the practical case in the US means extremism never has a chance and remember the extremism of today are the moderate views of the future. As I said above, extremists still influence politics, even if they don't control it.
Hell, there're more differences than that, Trolly. It's not just about extremism. Holland has, in practice, 3-4 major central parties; Democratic Neo-Liberals, Conservative Neo-Liberals, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. Depending on how mood swings, any 2 or 3 of these parties can get elected into a majority. This is even a question of diversity of moderates, not just the extremists to the left and right.
----------------------------------------
See, CCR, you're looking at these problems quite wrong. For one thing you're looking at the wrong countries. Not every EU country has the same system of electional and not all multiparty systems are equal.
GB practically has a copy of the electoral college. Great Britain is seen as a small copy of the US, politically. The fact that they have three parties makes no difference.
France has a disturbed and badly designed political system that needs some major revision.
Holland, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg are four countries that have very similar systems, all captioned under the name "Rhineland model" (I mentioned this before).
If you're going to judge a system against that of the US, use the Rhineland model, not all countries.
I don't understand what you're trying to argue, for the rest, so sorry, can't counter-argue.
