[eli_gottlieb]

>But if you're on Team Pepsi, you shouldn't be very happy when your captain makes things happen due to technicalities and the ability to skirt Congress; Team Coke is going to be in charge at some point and all of these easily-implemented changes are so easily undone.

You've got a very valid point, and one we should extend. Part of the very point of democracy is to cultivate a loyal opposition whose rule you can live with, even if it displeases you sometimes.

On that score, the American party system is, unfortunately, a massive failure. The Republicans are dangerously close to using districting and electoral quirks (and even, after 2018, potentially amending the Constitution) to exterminate the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party have been trying for more than a decade to put together a demographic coalition that could keep the Republicans from winning anything ever again -- except for how miserable a failure that project has been.

[throwaway4891a]

Robert Reich would agree per John Kenneth Galbraith at a higher level of abstraction. Strong, nearly equal-strength parties is better for democracy than a lopsided near-monopoly.

"The Disease of American Democracy" 2014

http://robertreich.org/post/95109113190

In an ideal world, a parliamentary/coalition system maybe better because it promotes greater socio-political evolution and forces parties/leaders to put forth better platforms. There are other pros/cons as well.