<<Did I bring up Brutal?>>
I brought up brutality in distinguishing U.S. preselection of candidates for phony "elections" from Communist pre-selection. Regardless of who brought it up, YOU were the one who attempted to suddenly change the issue from which elections were more genuine measures of popular will to which were more brutal. Presumably because on the issue of which election system more realistically represented the popular will, you were all out of arguments that favoured the American way.
<<Ok but it isn't supposed to change the power structure , it is supposed to enable the people to change the leadership of the powerstructure without resorting to revolution. This it does quite well.>>
My point was that the people who are on the top of the power structure in both communist and U.S. systems have gamed the election process so that the system and their privileged position within it will be preserved regardless of the election results. The people have no power to change the system through their elected representatives. When you say "it isn't supposed to change the power structure," that is pure bullshit. There were no limits other than the Constitution on what the people through their elected representatives could do. They could for example elect a government that would stop supporting Israel, and they could elect another government in the next election that could sign a mutual defence treaty with Israel. Today the system is gamed to protect special Israeli interests such that regardless of the winner of the election, it won't make a damned bit of difference to Israel. Similar protection exists for the interests threatened by single-payer healthcare insurance, for the entire foreign policy structure and for the banks. There will be no radical restructuring of any aspect of the system in which powerful vested interests would stand to lose.
<<Do you mean it is a matter of degree? The canadates are selected by voteing within the parties, this is called "primarys" or "caucuses" and the partys both are constantly seeking people who can appeal to the people and win.>>
No, come on, you know it is more complicated than that. They are seeking people within a very narrow political spectrum of opinion who can appeal to the people and win. Cynthia McKinney is an example of someone who can very obviously "appeal to the people and win," yet who was totally destroyed when she ventured outside the narrow spectrum of politically acceptable opinion and stepped on the toes of the Israel Lobby.
<<I am prepared to admit your were right to claim the greater Bruatality for the Communists.>>
I don't think you understood me. In the narrow area of electoral fixing, I conceded that the Communists were probably the more brutal overall. In general, I don't think it's at all clear that Communism was any more brutal than America.
<<So what law prevents the fate of the Wigs from comeing to a party that can't please a lot of people?
In the present?>>
Basically it's the complex of laws starting with the Constitution that govern how elections are held and the ability of moneyed interests working within that legal framework (and sometimes outside it) to game the system that prevents today's "two" political "parties" from suffering the fate of the Whigs. The interests know that they have to preserve the fiction of electoral choices, and so the maintenance of two so-called political parties (even though both promote essentially the same version of American policy) is essential to the preservation of that fiction. It's a stable system and it'll last a long time, although of course nothing lasts forever. I would expect that as the American Empire enters its final state of decline, a lot of things are going to change radically, the Constitution itself and the two parties that now dominate its process.
<<The number of the partys don't matter after it rises to two, three partys would work fine so would four.>>
I beg to differ - - two is all that's strictly necessary to preserve the illusion of democratic choice; each one that is added after that adds more uncertainty and more problems of control for the War Party.
<<But one is the lonely number with a problem.>>
Be that as it may, ONE is really the number of effective political parties in America today, split of course into two Tweedledum and Tweedledee wings.
