As long as the US persists in deluding itself that electing a sovereign is not only somehow different to submitting to an hereditary one
… but, moreover, continues in its two-and-a-half-century-long Freudian adolescent conflict between its rejection of the parental (mostly father) figure whilst simultaneously seeking to cower under his/her protection … Democracy will continue to have no chance of arising there.
Freud is bunk … quite rightly discredited decades ago … and, yet, the US continuously manages to prove him right. That’s the most messed up thing I ever imagined I would find myself saying as a psychologist: no psychologist with even the least clue does more than laugh when someone says
“Freud/Jung <anything at all, it really doesn’t matter what you say in conjunction with those words, the pair were entirely discredited decades ago; nothing you are about to say has any validity whatsoever so long as it references their work>”
And yet … there you all are, proving him right.
Furthermore, so long as you persist with the delusion that selecting whether one aristocratic family or another should get to be in charge for the next four years is anything other than a bloodless war of the ‘Roses’ with different gangs of robber barons …
… then even doing away with the Presidency as a worn-out anachronism won’t change anything either.
To the best of my understanding, insofar as I have any oversight of all the countries in the World at all, let alone of how they govern themselves, there are no democracies in the World today … and even if there ever were, they were a long time ago now.
If we want to achieve Democracy then I suggest we start with this
… and then explore issue like funding it, enabling all candidates equal opportunity to campaign, preventing abuse of the system (like not allowing members of the government to set their own salary, for instance) and other stuff beyond the simple mechanics I suggested.
Otherwise, it’s all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic anyway.
