"Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate." - DSA https://program.dsausa.org/
No Democrats and no Republicans. A "two-party system" DSA alleges should be "replaced." However, they offer no definition of "a multi-party democracy." Two political paerties is a multi-party democracy already.
The two major political parties are;
• Democratic registered in 50 States
• Republican "
However, there are other national parties:
•Libertarian registered in 35 States
• Green " 20 States
• Constitution " 12 States
Is this not a "a multi-party democracy?" By DSA claim, we are not currently a democracy. The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, already guarantees every state in the union a "Republican Form of Government." Republican, not as in the political party, which did not then exist, but as the form of government, comparable to a democracy. [See part 22]
There are other registered political parties in a number of States, but, the fact is currently, even though posting a political platform, the Democrat Socialists of America is not a registered political party in any State, yet wants its "members" to advocate all these platform planks being reviewed in this series of posts. So, if there is not currently a "a multi-party democracy," in the United States, why doesn't the DSA want to register as another political party to add to the existing "multi-party democracy?" Why are they so shy? Answer: DSA wants a communist state, not a democratic republic. Political power in a few hands, not in over 500 hands. In one place, not in 51 places.
Our current major parties could be the Blue and the Red, and what difference is made? That we name them "Democrat" and "Republican" is of little consequence. "What's in a name?" Will Shakespeare's Juliet lamented. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." [Romeo & Juliet, II, ii] In fact, those names mirror the democratic republic that we are, already, so they seem fitting titles. Is this simply a matter that communists who "fight" are merely dissatisfied with everything their lives currently are, and can find no joy in it? Joy is an attitude we make of what we have and are, but it includes hope and faith in a system of a democratic republic, which we already are. The DSA would really make us something else. Namely, communist.
Reminder: in Part 14 I stipulated "... Marx, in his Manifesto of 1848 does mention "socialism" a couple of times, but the title is not "The Socialist Manifesto." It is, rather, "The Communist Manifesto." For that reason, "socialism" has been more often referred to, in these posts, as communism. After the Manifesto, the one by Marx, that is, which dovetails nicely with the DSA platform. It is no coincidence. Eyes must be wide open in this nomenclature.
We already have proportional representation in the House of Representatives, although as of 1929 by the Permanent Apportionment Act, the House of Representatives is limited to 435 members. The Senate is likewise apportioned to have 2 Senators representing each State. There is no need to "implement proportional representation,"
by a communist system. So, by what logic would the Senate be abolished, yet "expand" the House with more players? To reduce the representation, not expand it.
Yes, the system has problems. Did anyone promise there would be no problems? No. But, they did declare our democratic republic as an "experiment." It is that. Experiments do not always anticipate all results. Thus, Article V was provided before the whole "experiment" was launched by the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Article V details how constitutional changes are made. They devised a change pattern before launching the system. Forward thinking. The DSA is running headlong into the future with eyes riveted in the rearview mirror. Accidents happen that way.