Most of us Americans are anti-democratic. Take this test and see if you believe in democracy:

What is your first impulse when, politically, you don't get your way? You know, let's say you are a Republican and the election of 2006 puts the anti-Christ (Nancy Pelosi) in charge ... or you are a Democrat and GWBush "stole" Florida and the presidency. Is your first impulse this: I want my party to block everything the other guys try to do, embarrass them at every turn and lie, steal and cheat back into a numerical majority after the next election? Is that democracy?

Political parties tell us we can have our way even though our viewpoint may be in the minority. Fact is, the Democrats are about 25% of the populace, the Republicans about 20%. Both are minorities. Don't give me the blue state/red state argument. Read Morris Fiorina's book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. The overwhelming majority of Americans stand in the middle. Problem for them is our elections have been commandeered by the two-party system, which has brainwashed the populace into thinking 1) it only has two real choices and 2) they ought to like it.

The Founders warned against the creation and use of parties to advance undemocratic movements (http://nonpartisangov.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=26). Their prophesies have been validated.

True democracy is an issue-based system and works like this: Let's say I'm Pro-Life and the "law of the land" (as it does currently stand) is Roe v. Wade. I truly believe that abortions are bad and people should not have them. In the marketplace of ideas, apparently I'm losing. My job (what should be my goal) is to change enough minds to my way of thinking. True democracy is a bottom-up system where the people's opinion is represented upwards. A party-based system is top-down where minorities incapable of winning minds choose to rig the electoral system to gain control of government and then attempt to control the electorate accordingly.

Political parties wear the mantle of majoritarianism because of the coagulated effect of gathering multiple issue positions, which are always counter to the other party's positions, and then gaining control of the election system. These are the choices, we are told. Pick one!

Being from Louisiana, I know there is not much there politically-speaking that one would want to emulate. If we Americans truly want to promote democracy worldwide, we should get out own house in order and emulate the Louisiana open primary electoral system. In the opening ballot, all candidates of all stripes run against each other. If one candidate gains 50+%, the election is over and that primary essentially became the general election. If no one gets 50%, the top two candidates (regardless of political affiliation) move into a runoff.

We should also move to a redistricting process like Iowa's. Nonpartisan ... the trend of the future. The future ... democracy ... can be now.

Oswald, you are reacting to the "is" not the "could be." I'm talking about actual democracy. You don't think it is possible?

It is trendy to believe that political parties rig the electoral system, though this is often an over-exaggerated and cynical view. The fact is that without any support on certain issues, parties cannot gain power.

Democracy functions relatively well, and it is far superior to the dictatorial alternative.

Oswald, I initiated this thread talking about the U.S. political system. I thought it was obvious I was not talking about "direct democracy," so I'll make that clear now: I'm talking about the type of "representative democracy" or "republic" that exists in the U.S. Our government is a representative democracy with a structure of law (the constitution) that includes a guarantee of certain rights (the bill of rights). I don't have to "think about" a "lynch mob" because it isn't what I'm talking about. So back to my question: Do you think a true "representative democracy" as I describe here is possible?

gommi, So you don't think that the political parties have rigged the electoral system? Voters don't choose candidates, but rather the parties choose voters through a totally rigged districting system (except in Iowa, where it is done in a nonpartisan fashion). The election system in every state makes it easy for Dems and Repubs to get on the ballot, and makes it difficult for anybody with an "I" behind his name. Two centuries of solid brainwashing, including abjectly false history textbooks that insist the Founders belong to parties, has crept into the media's mindset; this makes it impossible for any candidate considered "nonviable" (read: not a Dem or Repub and who has chosen not to take brides ... err ... contributions) to be heard. The media ignores anyone but mainstream party candidates.

It is more than "trendy to believe that political parties rig the electoral system." In fact, the biggest trend in politics today is the move to nonpartisan registration. Independents now outnumber Dems and Repubs in many states. There is a reason for that. For most, I think it is intuitive, but for many of us, it is because we recognize the straightjacket the parties have put around the marketplace of ideas.

gommi, you wrote: "The fact is that without any support on certain issues, parties cannot gain power." If each separate issue that is accumulated under the mantle of a party were "voted" on by the citizenry, they would only agree on a severe subset. As I mentioned in my opening salvo, Morris Fiorina's book exposes the fallacy that half of Americans agree with the Dems and half with the Repubs. Parties grab power by accumulating a bag of issue positions and then, through electoral statutes, force us to choose between sets of issue positions we mostly disagree with. That's not representative democracy. The Founders created a system in which all candidates, not parties, with all manner of issue positions would run against each other and the voters could pick the one closest to their values. If the Nazi and Stalinist Parties were the two major parties, and their brethren (minorities) chose the final two major candidates for you, would you be happy?

You finished with: "Democracy functions relatively well, and it is far superior to the dictatorial alternative." Straw man ! Nobody here is suggesting a dictatorship; I'm here advocating for real representative democracy, not the kind of fake democracy the party system presents.

If this were an actual democracy we wouldn't be dealing with so-called superdelegates and we wouldn't be letting the media do all our thinking for us.

If this and if that. As they used to say in New York, with if and a nickel you can ride the subway. As to Paul and Kucinich, the msm either ignored (Paul) or ridiculed (Kucinich) them.

OswaldTheOsprey

What you describe is true. However let's not forget GE, Murdoch, Viacom, Disney, Time-Warner and the rest. Remember those who pay the piper call the tune.

OswaldTheOsprey