Seems to me like a lot of people in USA (eh... most of the world), thinks that democracy is a question that can be anwered with just "yes" or "no".

The reason I write this (on an American board) is that you guys live in a country with a twoparty-system. The least democratic system of them all?

It's true that if you don't agree with one of the two major candidates, you are allowed to vote for someone else, but by doing this you'll probably help the one (major) candidate you like the least. Like Ed did in 2000 (that's democracy?). So are you really allowed to vote for the one you want? or are you stuck with the two major ones?


I don't know everything about your political system. Could you please help me with this one?

bingo
genius foriegner

Add to all this that it isnt the popular vote that wins, but the electoral vote, not very democratic i'd say...

we are not a democracy. we are a republic. and obi once has the greatest avatar ever in the history of ever

I've heard that Ireland does it a good way (and this was explained to me at lunch today so I don't have a good handle on it yet):

You write down the names of candidates in order of your preference. Something like:

Nader
Kerry
Bush

Then there is an initial count of people's first votes. At that point, if a candidate is shown to have no statistical chance (Nader) of being elected over the others, he is scratched from people's ballots, and then the next viable candidate is taken from each ballot. It is paired down until there are two candidates and the winner wins. This ensures that if you don't get your first choice, you will still be voting for someone with closer political leanings to your's. Keep in mind, you don't have to put down more than one person. You could just write Nader, but then when Nader was scratched from the list you'd be voting for no one.

This seems to make more sense, because you are voting for your political leanings as opposed to throwing all your voting power behind one person, boom or bust.

whoa, way too complicated for this country. Some people here can't even figure out how to vote with our easy system. You think the people in Florida are gonna be able to figure that shit out?

If anyone from Ireland is one here, feel free to explain it better than I did.

That's the way we do it in Australia. I'm not sure why they don't in America. You just number all the boxes in the order of your preference.

That's called Instant Runoff Voting. They're actually looking to do that in San Francisco but ran into some legal problems so I'm not sure if it's going to happen during this election.

There's also a system called Approval Voting where you simply put a check for all of the candidates you'd approve of being president. The candidate withthe most wins, thereby having the highest approval of all voters and being the most widely liked.

There are certainly criticisms and advantages to both. Frankly, despite any drawbacks, I think either one would be preferably to the current system.

And btw, here's a list of what systems all the countries of the world use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_v ... _by_nation

Ireland does indeed do it that way. It's cool that Australia does as well. I like the idea, although I think that the American political climate would still gravitate towards a two-party reaction, regardless of voting system. That, then, is the problem...the American voting public.

All I have to say is that the US is quite famous for speaking about democracy, but neither acting on it nor implementing it.

Seems to me that we (americans) are the ONLY ones that have a say in this election! No offense to those PJ fans in other countries, but we do not have the right to vote in your elections. Stay the hell out of OURS!

I disagree. I would say that anyone in the world can have an opinion on anything, including US elections. No, they cannot participate, but it is quite un-American and anti-freedom to say that someone cannot write an opinion.

As an American, I believe in freedom of speech for everyone and I push for that worldwide.

Are you not a supporter of that ideal as well?

I hope for more input from abroad and I welcome it. It gives us here in the States a different point of view.

Couple that with the fact that the US has often directly interfered with elections in other countries.

All they are doing is telling us how they feel.

I find it far worse for us to actually interfere with democracy while at the same time speaking to promote it.

We actively supported 36 dictators worldwide during the 20th century as part of Cold War politics.

Not very democratic nor free.

I like the instant runoff idea. I've believed for awhile now that the two-party system is damaging to democratic principles, and it seems like forcing people to choose three would be a good way to encourage not just more third parties, but third parties that appeal to a wider range of ideals (the moderate viewpoint, for example, does not exist in third parties as far as I can tell).

I totally agree with this point. Anyone has "the right" to voice their opinion. However, it does not have any bearing on "our" election. To quote a hilarious swimming pool sign: "We don't vote in your elections, stay the hell out of ours!"

Why on earth would you quote yourself?

It was just as an answer to your previous post.

yes and i live in a constitutional monarchy, but that doesnt mean its NOT a democray.. and thanks for ur thoughts on my avatar