Because the thing about democracies is that the people have the power. The people can vote and choose their leaders. Sometimes those leaders try to remove power from the people, and there is people dumb enough to still vote for them.
Those people, even if dumb, still are represented, and that’s what democracy is about. Because if you remove all the parties except one, that one party has no one to hold them accountable.
Even if you really like that one party, they have no reason to stay the same with the same ideals, eventually someone who want power above the will of the people will get a lot of power in that one-party system. And now you have an authoritarian state with no opposition.
There must always be opposition to make sure that the party in power has something to lose if they don’t work for their voters’ interest.
Sometimes those leaders try to remove power from the people, and there is people dumb enough to still vote for them.
How much of it is people being dumb vs corporations financing propaganda and misinformation to get people to vote against their interests? Without campaign finance regulation, the rich are always going to be strongly overrepresented politically, and once they’re in power, guess who gets to decide campaign finance laws?
So I guess just I don’t understand why you think letting these types run amok and decieve people and buy out elections as part of a fascist agenda is conductive to the expression of popular will in government, as opposed to just not letting that happen.
I didn’t say the rich doing whatever they want politically is good. The US is a flawed democracy. The rich has nothing to do with multi-party states.
If your solution to not having rich people influencing elections is to not have elections (why even have elections if there is only one party?). That’s like burning the whole forest so Ikea can’t buy it to chop down the trees. You immediately remove any democracy in fear that someone else might damage it.
If you remove all parties except one, the rich and powerful will manage to get into power in that one party with ease.
You can still have meaningful elections when there’s only one party, people of the same party can run for the same position against each other, so there is still a choice between candidates. In fact, that’s how many places work in the US, in solidly red or solidly blue districts, generally all the serious candidates run in whichever party is essentially guaranteed to win in the general.
It’s true that in those situations the governing party can exercise control over who is allowed to run. But I don’t really see how that’s worse than the US system, where each party has complete control over the primary process and doesn’t even have to hold primaries at all if they don’t want to. Ultimately, I don’t see either system as particularly more democratic than the other.
