Just as our legal system is adversarial, where two "teams" enter a court to at least attempt justice, it seems crucial to a successful political system that there be a dialectic between opposing views, hoping compromise benefits the whole.
Comments such as this, dismissing a huge portion of fellow citizens out of hand, without so much as recognizing that "they" might be trying to do what's best in their eyes is so far from a democratic ideal...
Explain to me what I'm supposed to do with people who wear "Better Russian than Democrat" t-shirts or my father-in-law who literally said "Her views are everything I want, but I can't vote for her because she's with the Democrats."
That kind of stuff is not anti-Democratic party--it is anti-Democracy.
> Just wow. Hope your dictators benevolent.
Sorry, I'm pretty comfortable burying a party that is anti-Democracy.
However, it turns out that the California jungle primary gives the opposing party more power because it often gets to be the king-maker between the two Democratic candidates rather than simply getting ignored because one candidate won the primary and now can roll over the general election.
So, that actually approximates your dialectic as opposed to mouthing it and never compromising. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats don't seek to silence the opposing party. But, yeah, the jungle primary is going to do a good job of removing the wing nuts from both parties from the conversation.
I consider that a feature and not a bug.
I suggest some further research.
> 99% of all humans are plain old every day decent individuals
Sorry. When you can build an entire political movement out of "But he's not hurting the right people", your statement is prima facie false.
What has become clear is that a very significant chunk of the US citizenry are very much not "decent".