That assumes that democracy is the goal. America traditionally holds that freedom is more important, although there have been small-d democratic movements that seek to violate the rights of minorities.
The point of having elections in America isn't because democracy is awesome. It's because elections serve as a check on government power.
Don't forget the hammer and sickle waving communists, either.
There's something to be said for being inclusive, but there's also something to be said for not giving a platform and a voice to every nutjob out there, either.
"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." --Voltaire (1770)
There is _nothing_ "to be said for not giving a platform and a voice to every nutjob out there." The balance must always lie with not restricting speech. If that means that a nutjob (as you call it), gets to say unpopular things, then so be it.
There's a difference between free speech, and sitting in parliament. By platform and voice, I meant that people in parliament are, well, kind of important. They get interviewed, they get on TV, they are in the papers, their words are on record, and so on.
It's not a matter of restricting speech, it's a matter of restricting the power to govern. It's Europe that actually bans fascists from marching down the street bearing swastika banners, and yet they still get elected to parliaments.
The power to govern is, in effect, speech, so by limiting ones ability gain political influence, you are limiting speech.
The ability of small political parties to gain representation in government is, I believe, a good thing, even (perhaps especially) when the views of those small parties are unpopular. Even those with extreme views have a right to express them.
Now, while I believe that all people have a right to speech, they do not have a right to be heard. There's an important distinction there. If someone cannot get elected due to extreme or unpopular views (I, for instance, will not vote anyone who holds various social stances that I consider detestable), that's acceptable. Not being able to get elected due to a mandated ban on your position is not something I can accept.
I'll grant you, the ability to gain office with extreme views has had some pretty dire consequences in the past, but I still cannot bring myself to believe that, even in the most extreme cases, limiting speech is acceptable.
> The power to govern is, in effect, speech, so by limiting ones ability gain political influence, you are limiting speech.
What? No, this is ridiculous. The power to govern is the power to use organized violence to achieve your goals. Limiting the ability to gain and exercise political power is exactly the point of any kind of liberal form of government.
The concept is that, in a first past the post system, thanks to Hotelling's law, the trend is towards the center. That has both positive and negative aspects, and I was merely pointing out that there are some positive aspects.
I'm not saying that the system in the US is perfect, either - it clearly has drawbacks as well. Just that there is no one perfect system, and that the US system does have some advantages.
I'd rather have some fascists in the government than have the whole government end up as fascist in the attempt to make sure that they are absolutely excluded.
As for not wanting a democracy, what would you prefer?
Every society is "democratic" in the sense that the people with the power and desire to rule are the ones who make the rules. Of course, a person without a gun has less power than a person with a gun, and a person with a fighter jet is more powerful still. So, if by "democratic" you mean all individuals having an equal voice, then I would say that fascism is by no means a demonstration of democracy working. Of course, if a significantly large and powerful group of people in a democratic society want to switch to fascism, it will almost certainly happen, and I guess the morality of fascism is another argument altogether.
The point of having elections in America isn't because democracy is awesome. It's because elections serve as a check on government power.