That tells me you didn’t read the differences I linked let alone follow them to other important ones noted by @Cowicide; these are demonstrated differences between what parties implement, which might be larger if the votes weren’t so evenly split. Or else you consider matters like how many people are dying from lack of civilized health care or war minor, trifles we can safely ignore while we gamble on applying even less constraint on how officials are picked, in which case I simply can’t agree.
And those are all differences between people who got in, or stood some chance of it. Do we really think none of the people considered in primaries, not a Santorum or Perry, would ever make a difference that hurts people? Because they found enough support there, so really the reason they weren’t run is because they weren’t expected to get past the general electorate. Well, that’s the constraint you’re asking to give up.
In exchange for…I’m not sure, really. The corporate influences certainly haven’t been unhappy to find people aren’t voting, which is what makes work strikes effective. We need to do a lot of overhaul to this system separate from voting, but I don’t see what makes putting even less check on these people in the mean time a sensible idea.
