Political parties nowadays mainly serve their supporters, as elected lobbyists, often at the expense of the public interest. Should a democracy not only serve the whole people, with accents from the ideology (ies) of the majority?

The public interest does not exist.Every citizen has another idea of what is good for the country and its inhabitants. That is why there are also several political parties that are shaping these various ideas. In The Netherlands, a government is always based on parties that jointly have a majority. In this sense, the accents are already laid on the ideologies of the majority.

Lobbying is nothing but trying to influence politics.Politicians take over the opinions of lobbyists or reject them. Remember that lobbyists also provide a lot of information about all sorts of issues. A politician is not omnisciating, and must decide on the basis of facts and ideas. Everyone can try to exert influence because it belongs to freedom of expression and association.

As Niek Holtzappel says, there is no “general interest”.Although we do not have a perfectly transparent, representative representation of the people and government, we are about as close as possible in the Netherlands. This is due to the prportionality of our system, and the many Parties.

In countries like the US and the United Kingdom, there are only a few parties with a real chance to lead the government, leading to these few parties.These countries use the system First-Past-The-Post: The country is classified in as many districts as the number of seats that can be divided into the House of Representatives/Commons (in the Netherlands the second chamber) and each district prefers one Parliamentarian. Are you for a candidate who, if only with one voice difference, loses another? Bad luck, the other comes into the house and your vote expires. Because of this, you have only two choices in practice: Whether you vote for the biggest contender, or you vote for the second largest, to stop the biggest contender. All voices that do not go to the second biggest contender will help the biggest contender to win. This means the two-party system.

Most voices are useless in this FPTP system; If you do not vote for the winner in your district, your vote has been discarded, and the winner 20,000 votes more than second place, then these extra votes for the winner won’t make any out.This yields disproportionate distributions; In 2005, the Labour Party won a majority of seats in the British House of Commons, while receiving a total of only 35% of the votes.

In addition, because there are only two promising parties, the choice is reduced.Within the large parties, people gather from different ideologies, and factions (movements within the party) arise. For instance, within the Conservative Party in the UK there is a separation between proponents and opponents of Brexit, and in both Conservative and American Republicans a cleavation between conservative (SGP) and more moderate/progressive right (CDA, VVD, D66) . Democrats in the US have moderates (CDA, VVD, D66, CU) and progressive, socialist types (SP, PvdA, GroenLinks). At Labour there has been a New Labour time, a more moderate rate of the generally socialist Labour, but under Jeremy Corbyn the party leadership has moved back to the left. Now you can think: How is this a disadvantage? You still have all the opinions but in tegesting to here fewer parties, and thus less gesplinter, coalition formation and confusion for less politically interested voters. But the problem is again the FPTP system. In Each constituency there is only one winner, so each party has only one candidate you can vote for, while those parties are so diverse. Are you an American for a moderate, more progressive Republican race, and is in your district Rick Santorum the candidate for that party? Bad luck, you can only vote for him or a candidate of another party. Are you British and for Labour, but do you find Jeremy Corbyn something to the left anyway? Then I hope for you that you do not live in the north of the London Borough of Islington, because there the controversial party leader is the candidate.

An even worse example of a democracy with flaws in my opinion is Canada.Not alone used Canada FPTP for their House of Commons, the Canadian Senate still has much worse flaws. This is not elected as the Dutch or U.S. Senate, but is appointed by the Prime Minister, and may remain as long as senator if they want to be up to their 75th. This means that if a Senate seat is discharged, the prime Minister may give away this seat. So, if many senators stop/die during the reign of a certain prime minister, they can thus give his/her party a disproportionate number of seats in the Senate, so that this party will be able to exert more power for decades than they Support the population.

I am not talking about troubled countries with regular coups, dictatorial behaviour and violent conflicts, I am talking literally about our friends, whom we really see as free, democratic countries.

If we find Canada, the US and the UK already democratic, and the citizen may be happy to live there, if you consider that no dictatorial regime has come to power in all these years of flawed democracy, you need to consider how happy we can be with our System, where the second chamber is elected proportionally and each voice counts equally heavily and there is a first chamber/Senate elected (by the subdivisions, like US) and the second chamber and Government of unilateral power, something which is also in half the world No longer happening, including the UK (House of Lords are appointed and cannot definitively stop laws)