Toxicseagull wrote:
no offence but at least Britain has other party's apart from democrats republicans and "independent". whilst its not perfect it is more democratic. the more choice the more options allowing to express your view.
a one party system would be totalitarianism. Not communism.
on a side note this is exactly why Americans have a right to bear arms, you have the weapons, what's missing?
wikipedia ftw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_p … rd_parties . The "political standing parties", so to speak, are in fact the "Big 3": Republicans, Democrats, Independents. Independents is not, as I guess you may think it is, a catchall 3rd party. We have our own plethora of extraneous parties. Quite an impressive list, imo.
My claim was that British party discipline limits the extent of Britians democracy. Knowing, beyond all reasonable doubt, the outcome of a vote before it is even voted is poor choice, imho. Then again, party discipline and a strong, known voter base also leads to greater efficiency in government, unlike the American government/bureacracy, where our 8.000.000 parties split up, water down, and altogether noobify many of the laws we pass. America is a bit too democratic, if you ask me.
Also -- i dont get that last part