• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Comparing USA to European,and other parliamentary governments.

Peter King said:
Well maybe still fairer than the UK system where you can win a seat with just 25 or 30% of the vote.
Click to expand...

You can do that in the American system as well, it just most of the time there is only two parties. If you have enough independents that is possible.
 
Carjosse said:
You can do that in the American system as well, it just most of the time there is only two parties. If you have enough independents that is possible.
Click to expand...

I have seen UK elections with more than a dozen candidates, including totally idiotic names and parties. For example:

Official Monster Raving Loony Party

Fancy Dress Party

Church of the Militant Elvis Party

Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog

And then I am not even talking about Lord Buckethead
 
Peter King said:
Well maybe still fairer than the UK system where you can win a seat with just 25 or 30% of the vote.
Click to expand...

Here, Canada, a Green Party candidate won a bye-election yesterday with 37%. We have a 'first-past-the-post' system, which I approve of, but if you can't accept that kind of result there's other electoral schemes in the parliamentary system you might like better.
That's the beauty of the parliamentary system. You can model it how you like.
 
Peter King said:
I have seen UK elections with more than a dozen candidates, including totally idiotic names and parties. For example:

Official Monster Raving Loony Party

Fancy Dress Party

Church of the Militant Elvis Party

Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog

And then I am not even talking about Lord Buckethead
Click to expand...

Lord Buckethead proved to be the leader the UK needed, so far he has been right about everything. There is nothing stopping the same thing from happening the the US.
 
Lafayette said:
In a two-party system with an Executive PotUS and both gerrymandering and an unfair (non popular-vote) EC, the American democracy is one of the most manipulated of any advanced economy on earth ...
Click to expand...
Lafayette, I, and I suppose almost all people perceive some more or less faults within their nations' social, economic, or political environments.

I believed President Nixon's manners of President Nixon and his administrations' conducts were too often particularly detrimental to our nation. I'm now much more distressed due to the substantial portion of voters' believing President Trump's manners of conduct and his administration should be tolerated. However, I do not generally agree with this, your hyperbolic description of the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Carjosse said:
Lord Buckethead proved to be the leader the UK needed, so far he has been right about everything. There is nothing stopping the same thing from happening the the US.
Click to expand...
Peter King, prior to your, and Carjosse's posts, I had never encountered the term “Lord Buckethead”.
I referred to Lord Buckethead - Wikipedia ,

and I greatly appreciate the manner by which that beneficial concept seems to be generally expressed.
Thank you both for introducing me to your Lord Buckethead.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Lafayette, I, and I suppose almost all people perceive some more or less faults within their nations' social, economic, or political environments.

I believed President Nixon's manners of President Nixon and his administrations' conducts were too often particularly detrimental to our nation. I'm now much more distressed due to the substantial portion of voters' believing President Trump's manners of conduct and his administration should be tolerated. However, I do not generally agree with this, your hyperbolic description of the USA.
Click to expand...

Evidently, you have every right to disagree. This is, afterall, a Debate Forum.

But you counter with no evidence that the manner in which I pictured "our democracy" is wrong, wrong, wrong.

For instance, how can you not understand that an Electoral College DESTROYS popular-votes by allowing ALL STATE EC VOTES uniquely to the winner of the popular-vote in that state? (In a national vote for the presidency, should not the vote-counting tabulate ONLY the winner of the popular-vote?)

How can you think that manipulating voting boundaries to give preference to either of two-parties is acceptable?

What is your argument that BigMoney spending to presidential candidates (mostly to run TV-commercials) promotes a free-choice of candidate based upon credible propositions?

No real democracy on earth allows that to happen. Ours does ... !
 
Last edited:
Peter King said:
Well maybe still fairer than the UK system where you can win a seat with just 25 or 30% of the vote.
Click to expand...

And how, pray tell, is that NOT FAIR if there were multiple candidates participating in the vote?

The popular-vote is the the UNIQUE ELECTORAL VOICE of any real democracy. And such is the case in most democracies. Except one. That of the US!

Last time I looked, that was the way votes are counted in the UK (and all of the EU) ...
 
Lafayette said:
... What is your argument that BigMoney spending to presidential candidates (mostly to run TV-commercials) promotes a free-choice of candidate based upon credible propositions?

No real democracy on earth allows that to happen. Ours does ... !
Click to expand...
Lafayette, you are presuming that we're entirely in disagreement. That's far from true, but also I far from agree with your hyperbolic characterization of United States federal laws and government.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:
Increase effective prices for broadcasting commercial time.
Many of us are concerned about the huge and growing expenditures for seeking elected offices. I suppose purchasing electronic broadcasting time or space on internet screens is the most expensive single items for national and state-wide campaigns. because that's the most advantageous use of campaign dollars.

Political influence is being auctioned, powers' further gravitating to the wealthiest bidders and reducing the populist character of our democratic republic.

A message may not mention the names of political candidates, parties,drafts of laws or regulations proposed or passed by our governments' legislators, but still be an effective political message. Government cannot and should not attempt determining messages' extents of political purposes.
I doubt if legal and effective federal regulation of political financing could be drafted, but if we succeeded to enact such effective USA laws, they'd surly also sooner lead to our transformation from democracy to fascism.

Purchase of electronic broadcasting services should not be a tax deductible item. If the political services cannot be effectively regulated, we should not enable those expenses to be commingled with commercial expenses and in effect be government subsidized.

[Tax deductions currently allowed for creation broadcasting content, (e.g. scripts, art, performances, etc.) would continue to be allowed. There's legal precedent for requiring that a category of expense,(such as purchase of broadcasting services), be legally identified and isolated from all other billing expenses.]

This is a radical proposal. But increasing the effective prices paid for broadcasting commercial interruptions to better retain our democracy and prevent fascism, is a good bargain.

Respectfully,Supposn
Click to expand...
 
Lafayette said:
... For instance, how can you not understand that an Electoral College DESTROYS popular-votes by allowing ALL STATE EC VOTES uniquely to the winner of the popular-vote in that state? (In a national vote for the presidency, should not the vote-counting tabulate ONLY the winner of the popular-vote?) ...
Click to expand...
Lafayette, there were valid reasons for establishing the Electoral College, and today some of those reasons still have validity.

The thirteen colonial governments compromised to obtain, and they've mostly retained their sovereignty within their own jurisdictions.

Jefferson and many of the other delegates were extremely concerned that our new (and at that time very unique form of a national government), should not, (as the French then recently had), become subject to mob rule. The constitutional provisions to protect the interests of minorities, (including lesser populated states), are no less valid today.
(The storming of the Bastille and executions of the French nobility were then very fresh in the delegates' minds).

Simply because you believe the Constitution should be modified to elect the president by pure majority, doesn't and shouldn't make it happen. The Electoral College is not among my own political concerns.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Grand Mal said:
Here, Canada, a Green Party candidate won a bye-election yesterday with 37%. We have a 'first-past-the-post' system, which I approve of, but if you can't accept that kind of result there's other electoral schemes in the parliamentary system you might like better.
That's the beauty of the parliamentary system. You can model it how you like.
Click to expand...

The problem with first past the post is that only large parties and their supporters get parliamentary representation. In the UK it is pretty much only Tory, Labour and LidDems who get a larger part of the electoral haul. And nowhere near their actual percentages of voters (especially the LibDems) and anyone who votes Green normally gets NO representation even if they would represent one in ten voters. I could not support that system in my country.
 
Lafayette said:
And how, pray tell, is that NOT FAIR if there were multiple candidates participating in the vote?

The popular-vote is the the UNIQUE ELECTORAL VOICE of any real democracy. And such is the case in most democracies. Except one. That of the US!

Last time I looked, that was the way votes are counted in the UK (and all of the EU) ...
Click to expand...

Because someone with 35% of the vote will get the seat in the UK, even if his competitors have 34% and 31% of the vote, the only voice coming from that district will be the party that had 35% of the vote. Meaning 65% of the people in that district will have voted with no representation whatsoever. In a system of proportional representation you get the pleasure when you are of those 65% is that your vote will matter when it comes to parliamentary representation. That is why first past the post is so bad when it comes to not giving a true representation of how people feel or vote.
 
Lafayette said:
And how, pray tell, is that NOT FAIR if there were multiple candidates participating in the vote?

The popular-vote is the the UNIQUE ELECTORAL VOICE of any real democracy. And such is the case in most democracies. Except one. That of the US!

Last time I looked, that was the way votes are counted in the UK (and all of the EU) ...
Click to expand...
It's not fair because it means the majority of people voted against the person who "won". If you have a "first past the post" system then you need a run off of the top two candidates like in France. It is the only fair way of doing it.

There are many different kinds of parliamentary systems, but most of them have link between the overall vote and number of seats. In the UK system there is no such link and that causes a democratic problem. Same for the US House where gerrymandering of districts have turned most seats into no contest seats and favouring the minority GOP.

But back to the UK or Hungary who have fixed the election system to favour a certain party. When Cameron came to power he had around 35% of the vote but an absolute majority of the seats in Parliament. In Hungary, Orbans party got way under 50% of the vote and yet have a constitution changing 66% of the seats in Parliament.

The two above examples can hardly be called free and fair democracies....



Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
Lafayette said:
And how, pray tell, is that NOT FAIR if there were multiple candidates participating in the vote?

The popular-vote is the UNIQUE ELECTORAL VOICE of any real democracy. And such is the case in most democracies. Except one. That of the US! ...
Click to expand...
PeteEU said:
It's not fair because it means the majority of people voted against the person who "won". If you have a "first past the post" system then you need a run off of the top two candidates like in France. It is the only fair way of doing it. ...
Click to expand...
Pete EU, Peter King and Lafayette, we citizens within democracies often obtain better, and seldom receive poorer government than we in aggregate deserve. If the party in power is providing poorer government, there may be an opportunity for remedy within a next election.
There's no remedy for citizens that do not strive to understand and act in their own best interests, and when they're a substantial portion of their nation's citizens, they imperil their nation's democracy.

Lafayette argues the candidate receiving a majority of the total votes cast, should be the winner, and the Peters' argue no; voters for the other candidates were not simply voting in favor of their own first preference, they MAY ALSO have been voting against the candidate that received the largest plurality of votes.

Some democracies have chosen the “first past the post” method, and some choose to conduct “runoff elections”. There are other suggested methods that may also no less reflect the democratic-republic concept. We're all no more or less “right” because this question of opinions has no yet absolutely correct answer.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Some democracies have chosen the “first past the post” method, and some choose to conduct “runoff elections”.
Click to expand...

Not "some"!

These (from Wikipedia here):
Other countries with electoral college systems include Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu. The Seanad Éireann (Senate) in Ireland is chosen by an electoral college. Within China, both Macau and Hong Kong each have an Election Committee which functions as an electoral college for selecting the Chief Executive and formerly (in the case of Hong Kong) for selecting some of the seats of the Legislative Council. In Guernsey, an electoral college called the States of Election chooses the island's jurats. Georgia will have the Electoral College to elect the President of Georgia beginning in 2024.
Click to expand...

Moreover, the rule that sets apart the US is the anti-democratic "winner-takes-all" of the EC-vote. Which effectively NEGATES the vote of citizens who voted.

You don't mind in the least for your state to have negated your vote in the national poll for PotUS just because you voted for one of the "losers"? And you don't mind in the least that a National Election of the PotUS voted the loser as winner?

Wow! What planet do you live on ... ?
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
It's not fair because it means the majority of people voted against the person who "won". If you have a "first past the post" system then you need a run off of the top two candidates like in France. It is the only fair way of doing it.
Click to expand...

The Electoral College in the US is a national vote that works under rules passed by its government in 1812! At the time, the southern states were VERY KEEN to assure that Negroes do not vote! Which is why they insisted upon the Electoral College and its "winner-take-all" division of the popular vote.

Which effectively NEGATED all the votes of the losers as reported to Congress. Where was the honesty/fairness in such a voting mechanism?

PS: Do find me the Electoral College outside the US that "negates" the vote of the losers by delivering all-EC-votes to the majority winner! When the popular-vote was actually split amongst a number of candidates!
 
It should be clear that in any state the Electoral College vote is supposedly determined by population statistics gathered every decade or so. What makes the vote unfair is that though all citizens voted for their national candidate (for the presidency) then nationally their vote meant nothing if they voted for the loser of the state vote (for the presidency).

Since those votes were negated in the national-count by the state's Electoral College!
 
I'm Supposn said:
Pete EU, Peter King and Lafayette, we citizens within democracies often obtain better, and seldom receive poorer government than we in aggregate deserve. If the party in power is providing poorer government, there may be an opportunity for remedy within a next election.
Click to expand...

Nope.. that is a myth in some of the countries mentioned.

Hungary.. the swing needed due to the rigged election system is insane. The opposition would need to get 60+% of the vote to even get 50% of the seats and that is only if the ruling party allows it of course. They have the power to change the rules whenever they want.

UK... They system is more than often rigged in favour of the Tory party... which is logical since it is them that created the system. The Tories dont need to get a majority in the districts, they just need to get more votes than the opposition and that aint so hard when there are 1000202 candidates diluting the vote.

US... Gerrymandering is so bad in certain states, that it will always return a GOPer to the House. To change this system, you need in the state themselves to take power away from the GOP, but... the problem is again that the gerrymandering is so bad, that it is often near impossible from election to election. And yes it happens also in Democratic controlled states, but no where near as outrageous as in GOP states.. Just look at Austin, Texas, a Democratic stronghold who gives a majority of its Congressional seats to GOPers due to how the districts are written up by the GOP.

There's no remedy for citizens that do not strive to understand and act in their own best interests, and when they're a substantial portion of their nation's citizens, they imperil their nation's democracy.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.. that is why you need a strong electoral system that is not easily manipulated by the governing party.

Lafayette argues the candidate receiving a majority of the total votes cast, should be the winner, and the Peters' argue no; voters for the other candidates were not simply voting in favor of their own first preference, they MAY ALSO have been voting against the candidate that received the largest plurality of votes.
Click to expand...

The basic principle of democracy and the republic idea (which is based on democracy), is majority rule. The one with most votes wins. However saying that, a system that returns a minority total vote but gives a majority seat majority is flawed and undemocratic. It is no different than Iran, Iraq under Saddam and so on.

Some democracies have chosen the “first past the post” method, and some choose to conduct “runoff elections”. There are other suggested methods that may also no less reflect the democratic-republic concept. We're all no more or less “right” because this question of opinions has no yet absolutely correct answer.
Click to expand...

Disagree. A first past the post system is a flawed outdated system put in place at the dawn of democracy to secure the election of traditionalist conservative parties. It is undemocratic on so many fronts. And there is an absolute correct answer... a government should always have a majority of the VOTE and Parliamentary seats behind them.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Peter King, among Great Brittian's, and I suppose all other truly democratic nation's parliamentary governments, there are periods of regularly scheduled times for MPs to publicly question and require responses from the Prime Ministers and their cabinets. Press conferences and individual journalistic interviews are desirable, but the parliamentary questioning of their governments is a superior democratic practice that the USA lacks.

I, a Yank envy that and the significant discipline their political party's demand of their party's members of parliament.
Is that discipline demanded upon all votes on the parliament's floor, or only what the Prime minister considers the votes to be upon questions that the prime ministers' believe to reflect their party's very basic political positions? I prefer absolute orthodoxy not be demanded from political parties legislators, but party members should share some common basic political principles of their political party.

I regret USA's political parties cannot be held responsible because they're unable and unwilling to practice any real party discipline. There's little real difference between USA's Republican and Democratic Parties; they're both actually unprincipled and that in turn is too often reflected within our governments' policies, (or lack of consistent policies). This problem's not nor do I believe should or can be remedied by law. We USA voters don't hold our political parties to higher standards. We vote for and sometimes obtain superior government, and I don't believe we now or ever had a government inferior to what we deserved.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Yes, in the UK there is a weekly Prime Minister's Question time. A few of the questions will be of a simple factual nature and will get straightforward answers. However most will be sycophantic ones from her supporters or hostile from the opposition. Like: Is the PM aware that her outstanding support for education has resulted in the schools in my constituency achieving the best results ever? Or: Is not the PM ashamed that as a result of her appalling neglect of education Britain's hard working children are condemned to lives of poverty?

Whether or not PMQs advance democracy is open to question.

(Government departments produce factual answers to questions which they guess might come up to go into the PM's large folder which she to hand in the House. I have sometimes been involved in this task in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office).
 
Litwin said:
one for sure the USA is the most Democratic country in the world, a good example case of north steam 2 God bless the USA
Click to expand...

Right! Soooo democratic that the candidate who LOST the popular-vote by a very large margin got elected PotUS!

What planet do you live on ... ?
 
PeteEU said:
US... Gerrymandering is so bad in certain states, that it will always return a GOPer to the House. To change this system, you need in the state themselves to take power away from the GOP, but... the problem is again that the gerrymandering is so bad, that it is often near impossible from election to election.

And yes it happens also in Democratic controlled states, but no where near as outrageous as in GOP states.. Just look at Austin, Texas, a Democratic stronghold who gives a majority of its Congressional seats to GOPers due to how the districts are written up by the GOP.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering and the Electoral College are the two misfits of America's "supposed democracy". Both are intended to manipulate the popular-vote and are therefore intrinsically unacceptable.

But, some people (in fact, many people) have no real education in Civics - beyond the trite explanation of what consists of the state and Federal governance. Which never takes more than a few hours.

Unless I am grossly mistaken Civics courses are not all that well constituted and do not explain the "principles of governance". Whyzzat?

Because what are use of principles if - since the early 1800s - both Gerrymandering and the Electoral College have been employed to "fix the vote". And this by BOTH PARTIES!

The voting system needs a total revamp and will not be getting one any time soon. Again, whyzzat?

Because BigMoney is allowed to influence voters by means of the BoobTube. Americans watch more hours of TV than any other nation on earth. (Don't believe that? See here!)

The TV is one of the most effective tools for manipulating a population. Which is why so much electoral funding is employed to do it. (Of course, that money - which is derived from the larger donors seeking preferential political treatment for their companies - is part of the problem that badly needs correcting in the US.)

Any national governance (of an developed country) on earth is difficult to run. Funding is mostly obtained by taxation, and too much taxation can turn-off voters. But, BigMoney, if allowed to do so, helps people get elected. Who then feel beholden to those who funded their campaign.

It is the connection between electoral funding and political influence that must be addressed, and the influence-peddling be suppressed.

At the basis of any well-run governance is the education of the people of how a country is run. That comes from Civics classes. And, according to the research, Civics teaching is not up to standard in much of the US.

If interested in the key parameters applied and how each state figures against that framework, see here: Civic Education Measures - "Civic education for all high-schools, by state".

Excerpt:
A 2016 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government, which was a significant decline from previous years. Not surprisingly, public trust in government is at only 18 percent and voter participation has reached its lowest point since 1996. Without an understanding of the structure of government; rights and responsibilities; and methods of public engagement, civic literacy and voter apathy will continue to plague American democracy. Educators and schools have a unique opportunity and responsibility to ensure that young people become engaged and knowledgeable citizens.

While the 2016 election brought a renewed interest in engagement among youth, only 23 percent of eighth-graders performed at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics exam, and achievement levels have virtually stagnated since 1998. In addition, the increased focus on math and reading in K-12 education—while critical to prepare all students for success—has pushed out civics and other important subjects.
Click to expand...

May heaven help Uncle Sam ...
 
USA
Has a two party dictatorship. Must be registered to a party before voting. Republican and Democratic party was originally one party. It was called Democratic-Republican party. Center politics does not exist in USA. You must either be left wing or right wing.

Code: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party


Parliamentary
Multi party system with usually 8 parties or more. Where all voters are represented left, center and right. Easier to swap out parties. And no parties has domination over the other. It is more balanced and prevents a majority dictatorship. The President and kings are neutral states of head. While the prime minister and politicians are advisors of the president or monarch.

In USA you only have 2 parties. Left and right. Socialist or liberal. The center is not represented in American politics. Center politics means a combination of leftist and rightist ideology combined. Does not need to be registered to a party. You can vote for whoever you wishes.

For Example
Kingdom of Norway
Kingdom of Sweden
Kingdom of Denmark

Or usually called Social democratic nations. Are all center politics. In Social democracy the politicians combines the ideology of socialist and libertarians to create the center. In USA this type of combination does not exist because of your two system dictatorship. Socialist democratic nations has mixed economy. This means!

Private and public sector exist in harmony with each other. The rich uses private services. While the poor uses public services. This is called social democracy.
There are private hospitals.
There are public hospitals.

There are private schools.
There are public schools.

There are private libraries.
There are public libraries.

There are public museum.
There are private museum.

There are private military industry.
There are public military industry.

There are private insurance for the rich.
While the poor are covered by public insurance and welfare.


Usually there is a lot of propaganda in USA about social democracy.
The Right wing usually say social democracy is a capitalist nation. Which is wrong cause its called mixed economy. Capitalism means there will only be private ownership. The left usually calls social democracy a communist nation. Which is also wrong. Because in communism the state owns everything.

Social democracy means
Leftist (Socialist politics).
Center politics (Combination of left and right wing politics).
Rightist (Liberal and Libertarian conservative politics).
Are all represented in politics.

Social democracy has mixed economy. Which means public and private sectors exist side by side with each other. Social democracy can only be achieved with a multi parliamentary system which represents different people from all walks of life. While the two party system. Only represent left and right while the center is neglected.

In USA you can clearly see that the left side are becoming more and more communist.
While the right side are becoming more and more libertarian.
The left calls for abolition of capitalism and wants to implement communism.
The right calls for full capitalism and wants every thing to be privately owned.
While the Center does not exist.

In order to have socialist democratic nation. USA must have center politics.
Because social democracy means Left wing + Right wing ideas combined.
Left wing + Right wing = Center politics which creates the social democratic nation.

Europe = Social democracy (center politics). Center politics exist because of multi party system.
USA = Left (Socialist and communist) vs Right (Liberal, conservative libertarians). Center politics does not exist because of two party system.

Legal Corruption
In USA there is something called Lobby and lobbying. This means private business can buy up politicians with money. This also means foreign nations can also buy up politicians with money. This is called lobbying or also known as legal corruption in Europe.

In Europe all parties are financed by the public and there are no lobbying groups that can buy up politicians. Once your party gets into the parliament. Everything will be financed by the state and public. In USA all parties are privately financed. That is the biggest different between USA and European parliamentary system.
 
Last edited:
I just want to add that. If Europe legalize corruption. Also known as Lobby groups and lobbying.
Nigel Farage would not be talking about Brexit. Just saying :2razz:. If lobby groups was Legal. Nigel Farage would be gone forever. Lobbying out of existence.
 
Fu Talk said:
USA
Has a two party dictatorship. Must be registered to a party before voting. Republican and Democratic party was originally one party. It was called Democratic-Republican party. Center politics does not exist in USA. You must either be left wing or right wing.

Code: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party


Parliamentary
Multi party system with usually 8 parties or more. Where all voters are represented left, center and right. Easier to swap out parties. And no parties has domination over the other. It is more balanced and prevents a majority dictatorship. The President and kings are neutral states of head. While the prime minister and politicians are advisors of the president or monarch.

In USA you only have 2 parties. Left and right. Socialist or liberal. The center is not represented in American politics. Center politics means a combination of leftist and rightist ideology combined. Does not need to be registered to a party. You can vote for whoever you wishes.

For Example
Kingdom of Norway
Kingdom of Sweden
Kingdom of Denmark

Or usually called Social democratic nations. Are all center politics. In Social democracy the politicians combines the ideology of socialist and libertarians to create the center. In USA this type of combination does not exist because of your two system dictatorship. Socialist democratic nations has mixed economy. This means!

Private and public sector exist in harmony with each other. The rich uses private services. While the poor uses public services. This is called social democracy.
There are private hospitals.
There are public hospitals.

There are private schools.
There are public schools.

There are private libraries.
There are public libraries.

There are public museum.
There are private museum.

There are private military industry.
There are public military industry.

There are private insurance for the rich.
While the poor are covered by public insurance and welfare.


Usually there is a lot of propaganda in USA about social democracy.
The Right wing usually say social democracy is a capitalist nation. Which is wrong cause its called mixed economy. Capitalism means there will only be private ownership. The left usually calls social democracy a communist nation. Which is also wrong. Because in communism the state owns everything.

Social democracy means
Leftist (Socialist politics).
Center politics (Combination of left and right wing politics).
Rightist (Liberal and Libertarian conservative politics).
Are all represented in politics.

Social democracy has mixed economy. Which means public and private sectors exist side by side with each other. Social democracy can only be achieved with a multi parliamentary system which represents different people from all walks of life. While the two party system. Only represent left and right while the center is neglected.

In USA you can clearly see that the left side are becoming more and more communist.
While the right side are becoming more and more libertarian.
The left calls for abolition of capitalism and wants to implement communism.
The right calls for full capitalism and wants every thing to be privately owned.
While the Center does not exist.

In order to have socialist democratic nation. USA must have center politics.
Because social democracy means Left wing + Right wing ideas combined.
Left wing + Right wing = Center politics which creates the social democratic nation.

Europe = Social democracy (center politics). Center politics exist because of multi party system.
USA = Left (Socialist and communist) vs Right (Liberal, conservative libertarians). Center politics does not exist because of two party system.

Legal Corruption
In USA there is something called Lobby and lobbying. This means private business can buy up politicians with money. This also means foreign nations can also buy up politicians with money. This is called lobbying or also known as legal corruption in Europe.

In Europe all parties are financed by the public and there are no lobbying groups that can buy up politicians. Once your party gets into the parliament. Everything will be financed by the state and public. In USA all parties are privately financed. That is the biggest different between USA and European parliamentary system.
Click to expand...

Your entire representation of the US is incorrect. One must register to vote but one need not be a member of a party to vote in general elections. There are a large number of parties. Not just two. And no. The Democrat and Republican party's did not spring from the same party. And yes. There are centrists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom