[dragonwriter]

> Democracy doesn't require a lot of parties, it requires that the people actually have the power to elect someone in charge.

No, this problem has been studied and democracy (that is, rule by the people) empirically requires an electoral system that had the capacity to support multiple competitive parties; to the extent systems artificially limit the option space they produce results that are not representative of the will of the people.

[lazyjones]

> No, this problem has been studied and democracy (that is, rule by the people) empirically requires an electoral system that had the capacity to support multiple competitive parties

First democracy: ca. 500 BC

First political parties: ca. 1800 AD

We could discuss in detail whether the EU system or the US system enforces more artificial limits, in the end the EC remains much less democratic due to its relative power and independence from the electorate.

[orf]

I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that political parties only came into existance in the 1800's.

Prototypal modern, organized political parties started to emerge in the 1700's. Do you think before then that everyone was an independent and had no common goals? Political factions predate even the first demcracy. There where a number of competing, and from many accounts solid, factions in both the greek and roman governing systems, which where for all intents and purposes a party.

[Dayshine]

>in the end the EC remains much less democratic due to its relative power and independence from the electorate.

Isn't the European Commission elected by the European Council, and formed of commissioners nominated by the democratically elected leaders of each member state?

Democracy doesn't have to equal direct election.