Zeebra, I don't believe lud is fully correct. Parties can choose and reject their candidates in any way they see fit. However, anyone can run for office if they meet some minimal requirements. As previously stated some states require that presidential candidates gain so many citizen signatures before they will be typed on a ballot, otherwise the list would be pages long and impractical. However, any candidate can be written-in in the provided blank spot. That means I could vote for myself and others could too if I met the requirements.
Thats what I actually thought.. And the reality is that no one running outside the Republican or Democrat party have any chance of winning..
I never actually said Iran was a better democracy than the US or even close, I am just saying the leader was democratically elected, which he was, and I put the situation on edge because the people here are so unwilling to look at things in realistic perspectives. They rather have an unhealthy singular way of looking at things, where they protect the US democracy as something fantastic, even though its not, and they refuse any notion that Iran in any way is democratic, even if it is in some ways democratic.
It would still be interesting to see an official source for how people go from nominating themselves to standing under the republican or democrat political platform, and what the procedures are for this. So I am still not saying that you or me are definetely right, I just want some clarification on that issue, because its very unclear at best.
The difference between Iran and the US is that there is no subjectivity to the US election process. The people vote and whoever has the most electoral votes wins, period.
Yes, but in this day and age that is closely tied with those delegates being represented by the voting in their state. Its very unlikely that any delegates will go against this tradition and just vote for whatever candidate they please, against the peoples vote.. Although in theory it can be so.
I am not critical towards this process at all, I am critical of the two party system in US politics, and the way elections are conducted in this day and age(with increased media influence)..
Our country has a two party system, not because its mandated but because the majority of americans agree the most with one or the other party.
Thats where I think you are wrong.. I think people are voting for the party they agree most with out of fear that the other party which they disagree with will be elected if they do not. Which is also a reason a third party will never be viable, because people know that the party they oppose will win if they switch their vote from the party which oppose it to a third party. Something drastic have to change for more than two parties in the US to ever happen, but if that happens, I believe it will be very unlikely that the US will ever go back to a two party system.
So in the end I think perhaps only say 50% of the total of people who vote for the democrats or the republicans actually strongly or mostly agree with their policies. And that the remaining just choose the best of the two out of fear that the one they hate most will get elected if they do not.
Overnight this could change and we could have 0, 1 or any number of viable parties. It all depends on how the people choose. No one is forced to vote for a particular party. Just because it happens that a two party system has evolved doesn't somehow mean its no longer a democracy.
This is where we disagree. I think it will NEVER change, and the US will always be a two party system, unless politics in the US is completely reformed or some kind of unlikely revolution happens..
Jesse Ventura, a former US wrestler has some incredibly valid and interesting points on the US two party system(and US politics in general), I suggest you take a look at it if you don't know what I am talking about, that guy is actually very smart.
Iran is not a democracy. The people vote but their vote is worthless because nothing gurantees that the elected person will get in. Moreover, elected officials are still subserviant to the mullahs. For example, if 100% of the country voted for adjimihad then he isn't guranteed to get appointed because a small group of people decide, not the voters. The people have ZERO say. They just get to say who they would PREFER but the gov't is under no obligation to oblige. This is unlike the US where if a person, no matter what party or affiliation, receives a majority of electoral votes then he will be the new president. Neither the SCOTUS or congress can change this.
I still think Iran is a form of democracy, because their parliament is also democratically elected in a procedure which is way more free than the presidential election. But even so, the president is also democratically elected..
I am not really sure as to the validity of your point that if he is elected by a majority that he also have to be approved after the election. I think only the final candidates have to be approved, and whoever is elected of them is the winner and will become president.. But then again, I am really no expert on Irans elections processes, and probably neither are you or anyone else on this forum.
Now if you wanted to point out how america isn't a democracy then you would have some valid points if you discussed the electoral voting system. This is why the US is actually a constitutional republic. But, as others have said repeatedly, the term "liberal democracy" as used by the US and other western countries isn't defined by voting alone.
I am not saying the US isn't a democracy. I am just saying all western democracies, including the one in the US, and most of those in Europe are quite dysfunctional, and I personally wish for great reforms of our political systems, not only to address those problems but also several other problems, such as corruption, the election process, separation of media and politics, and fixing the party system, and more.