No you do not. Or, you play with words, twisting their meanings. Your first response on this thread reads: "Wrong. Your government is terrified of them [FaLunGong]." WQe consider the FLG issue a domestic one. But, because of their nature, ay social issue can be read as political, as well, since they almost always involve power relatioship. Hence, if our response is about the social ills in the US, that's political, too, because poverty, or lack therof, involves a ditribution of resources, therefore, of power. That's political.
When your socio-political issues are considerably worse than US, it is absolutely absurd for you to criticize US.
As my lengthy post argues, there are built-in technical and systemic barriers. It is crafted well, successfully preventing not the establishment but viability and success of an aternative party. A corporate-fascist regime in time leads to apathy and people give up hope on political processes.
Now it is beyond any doubt that you have not taken even basic political science.
First...There is nothing wrong with 'built-in technical' barriers, kid. Simple majority consent is the earliest form of settling conflicts in a community, which then evolved into majoritarian electoral process. If you have 51 votes and I have 49, those are a 'built-in technical and systemic' barriers and no one can argue against them. No one can even criticize them because everyone in the community publicly consent to them.
Second...I asked you to find a
LEGAL barrier in the US that prevent the existence, rise, and participation of any political party in the US. It does not matter if it is 3rd or 4th or 5th party.
But for your education, the system that have clear
LEGAL barrier at least for the participation in governance is proportional representation (PR).
Election threshold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In
party-list proportional representation systems, an election threshold is a rule that requires that a party must receive
a specified minimum percentage of votes (e.g. 5%), either nationally or within a particular district, to obtain any seats in the parliament.
What this mean is that in order for a political party to earn seats in the legislature, that party must have
BY LAW a minimum percentage of the population who are registered members of that party. That is both a legal and technical barrier and perfectly legitimate. The danger here is that if the threshold is set too high, there can be as little as two parties in the legislature, and if the threshold is set too low, the legislature then becomes too fractured and prone to high inefficiency and political deadlock. The PR system is for when a people feels that simple majority is too basic and not fair enough. On the other hand, supporters of simple majority countered that if the demographic is diverse enough, it is more the reason to use the FPTP system because it would compel everyone to unite behind a few common banners. Both sides have good arguments.
So for you to bring up technical and systemic barriers as somehow credible criticisms of the US electoral system is genuinely laughable and revealing of your ignorance.
I do. Japan has one, too.
Is that supposed to be a joke ? If so, it is a pathetic one.
You implied that somehow the US have some kind of barrier that would prevent the existence of a third party. I showed you wrong, and I used the CPUSA at that. The point here is that where is the opposite of the Communist Party in China ? You criticized our application of democratic principles and tactics ? Fair enough, because it would imply that you value those principles. But lo and behold, you ended up supporting single party dictatorship.
China does not allow competing party politics at the national level -- if you call the perennial repeat of two-party system a competition. I know there are shades of political belief in both parties but still they have to follow the party line, and their chance to survive outside the party line (except as independents) is zero.
Our two horse race is still far better than your one horse pretense of an electoral system in China.
Yes, they can. But they cannot compete 527s and other corporate donations or the wealthy.
Again, you have no hard data to back up the charge that somehow corporate donors out give citizens.
We often hear about the mythical 'high Chinese IQ' in this forum. We have looked high and low but yet to see any. I brought up the CPUSA to illustrate a point and you missed it. Totally missed it, like a blind man who walked straight into a pole.
The US is a capitalist country. Communism is about the denial of the foundation of capitalism -- private property. So why the hell would capitalists give money to support an ideology that would deny them the right and freedom to earn profit in the first place ? So is there anyone who is between communism and capitalism ? Not really, other than the Socialist who leans more towards communism and capitalism. So if the CPUSA failed to convince capitalist Americans to give them money, it is clear that there is no need for any law to prevent Socialist or Libertarians or Greens or whatever to enter the public sphere. All each have to do is convince Republicans and Democrats to abandon those flags and take up new ones.
But I guess the 'convince' part must be awfully difficult for your to philosophically digest. To convince someone is a tacit admission that the 'someone' have choices and the freedom to select among those choices. And I guess it must be really hard for a Chinese to believe in choices and freedoms.
No. They are fed into people since there is no other choice.
Two is better than one.
Yes, the reason is clear. And it hinders third party efforts to win votes. That's the practical reality.
What 'reason' are you talking about ? This is about the Electoral College. Why did the American Founding Fathers insert this body between the people and Presidential contenders ? It is not to prevent alternate political parties. Again, you do not know what you are talking about and are too stupid to investigate the reason why.
Look army mule, nothing makes your system more special than others so long as it does not deliver good results. Talking about dynasties, probably, the US is the best in creating political dynasties throughout its modern history.
Good is relative. Better is operative word. The fact that a lot of money spent to convince the American public to vote for this or that candidate, despite any misgiving any citizen have the choices, means our system is better than yours.
Now explain to us why is little miss Jinping, daughter of Xi Jinping, who accomplished nothing other than the skill to sit for long periods of time, perceived to be the next leader of China ? Does that not bother you at all ?
That would be like saying the US government is terrified of the Branch Davidians.
No. It would not.
Here is the difference between 'persecution' and 'prosecution'...
http://www.translegal.com/common-mistakes/persecute-vs-prosecute
The Branch Davidians were prosecuted for violating laws that involved material things like guns, child safety including sexual conducts, and tax evasion. The US government does not fear those things.
On the other hand, your China fear non-material things like different political beliefs or even the hint of them. That is persecution and it comes from fear.
