comment: >
  
  
  It doesn’t matter if they know the candidates ahead of time when they don’t get to elect them.
  
  But you do elect them. You know that if party A wins person A is gonna be president and if party B wins person B is gonna be president. Therefore, a vote for party A is a vote for person A and a vote for party B is a vote for person B.
  How is that different than picking between the republicans and democrats, who have each chosen one person to represent them and who will be president if they win?
context: Well first off, the POTUS office isn’t one-to-one with a prime minister of a parliamentary democracy. The POTUS is the head of state in the US, whilst the head of state in, say, the UK, is the king. The prime minister is just the head of the government, and is much more restricted in terms of executive orders and such than their American counterpart. 
  Secondly, you seem to think that parliamentary democracies don’t have separation of power. They do, just as the US. The government is separate from the parliament, just as in the US. 
  Thirdly, I think you place too much important on individuals over parties and policy. I don’t necessarily care who heads the executive branch, I care about the policies they enforce. And that’s much more dependent on which party they represent than who they happen to be. >
  
  Yes, that’s why I used the term “leader of the country” rather than head of state or head of government. And I never said a parliamentary has zero separation of power, rather that an executive branch should exist, and be separate from the legislature to increase the separation of power.
  As for your third point, which system you prefer is irrelevant to which is more democratic. More democratic doesn’t always been better, and you’re welcome to think a less democratic system produces better results. >
  
  
  Yes, that’s why I used the term “leader of the country” rather than head of state or head of government. And I never said a parliamentary has zero separation of power, rather that an executive branch should exist, and be separate from the legislature to increase the separation of power.
  
  Alright. So your main argument is basically that you don’t directly elect the executive branch in a parliamentary democracy? 
  Keep in mind that most of the US government (Secretary of State, Treasury etc) is elected by proxy when electing president, much like you elect a prime minster by proxy when you vote for parliament in a parliamentary democracy. The difference between the two systems is thus one person. And as I said, that person is much less important in a parliamentary democracy than they are in a republic like the US.
  
  As for your third point, which system you prefer is irrelevant to which is more democratic. More democratic doesn’t always been better, and you’re welcome to think a less democratic system produces better results.
  
  You’ll have to define ”democratic” here. To me, the ”democratic-ness” of a system is best measured as the amount of influence people have on the policy being enforced. Being able to elect your head of state is just a proxy for that measurement, and one that is much less relevant in a parliamentary democracy than in the US. Other things to take into account when measuring the ”democratic-ness” of a country are things such as government transparency, how easy it is to vote, voter participation, the influence of money on the electoral process etc. >
  
  Cabinet positions are far less important than the leader of the country. And by more democratic, I mean how much more direct the democracy is. By more democratic, I don’t mean better, I just mean that the voter plays more of a role in determining the government >
  
  Is your view just that it's more democratic than the UK system or that it's more democratic than all parliamentary systems? Also are you just talking about presidential election or all elections for the government, so house/senate as well as president? >
  
  I’m saying the US system is more democratic than all parliamentary systems. I’m focusing on how the executive branch makes the US more democratic. Legislative elections more or less function in a similar way for both systems >
  
  Doesn't the US system deliberately make one of your houses have extremely unequal representation by having states all have the same number of representatives regardless of population? >
  
  The US had a bicameral legislature. Meaning there are two branches of the legislature. The House Representatives has representatives based off the population of each state, and the senate has equal representatives for each state >
  
  So how is that more democratic than each member representing roughly the same number of people? >
  
  It comes down to the whole states rights debate. But I’m not trying to defend the US legislature right now, I’m trying to argue that having a separate executive branch makes the US more democratic >
  
  But doesn't your system for presidential election have a FPTP system for awarding electoral college votes in many states allowing losers of the popular vote to win the election.
  So you can have the least popular person become president and the legislature gives voters unequal representation.
  Seems rather undemocratic compared to other systems that give proportional representation. >
  
  In the US we also don't vote directly for president or vice president. We vote for "electors" who in theory vote on our behalf. Same as a parliamentary system. Except it's worse because electors are based on size of state, an irrelevant characteristic that mean someone in Wyoming's vote is worth magnitude of times more than someone in California. In a parlimentary system at least all votes are weighed equally 
  In addition a conservative's vote in California is essentially worthless, as is a liberal in Texas - in a parliamentary system these votes would still be counted as part of the total. A system that makes people's votes functionally meaningless is anti-democratic. 
  
  Then, the president is elected based on the will of the people in each 50 states.
  
  I'd hardly call the votes of people in 2 or 3 swing states "the will of the people"
  I live in California and presidentially candidates don't even visit my state. Calling a system where the leader of a country doesn't visit or care about the issues in the most populated part of the country as "more democratic" is goofy.
  Edit: Just also want to add that you seem to be under the impression that a parliament can't have a separate executive branch, which is totally false. France for example has an elected president as well as a parliament. >
  
  I know, but the electors have no real power to change the outcome of the election. Many states have laws saying the electors have to vote with the people. The last election are 0 faithless electors.
  Elections in California or Texas aren’t any less democratic than elections in Wisconsin. Just because one state is a closer race doesn’t make it inherently more democratic.
  Also, not all parliamentary systems equally weigh the votes. Canada has districts just like the US for example. And that still doesn’t change the fact that in the US, regular day people get to vote on the candidates for president and in the actual presidential election. In parliamentary systems the voting is exclusively limited to party leaders. >
  
  
  Elections in California or Texas aren’t any less democratic than elections in Wisconsin
  
  False. California has 55 electors for 22 million registered voters, meaning each elector counts for 400,000 people. Wyoming has 3 electors for 280,000 registered voters meaning each elector counts for 93,000 people. This means that someone in Wyoming's vote is worth 4x someone in California. Counting one citizens vote more than another is the opposite of democratic.   
  The states where votes are counted more also tend to have much whiter populations - it's just a way to count white people's votes more with extra steps. Devaluing the votes of racial or sexual minorities (gay people tend to live in costal cities) is the opposite of democracy.   
  
  In parliamentary systems the voting is exclusively limited to party leaders.  
  
  False. In France for example citizens vote directly on the President and also have a parliment.
  
  Canada has districts just like the US for example.   
  
  Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that Canada also has a flawed electoral system doesn't make the US right. >
  
  Yeah, the amount of electoral votes a state gets needs to be reformed so that each state has as close to equal voting power as possible. But again, this is still better than simply not allowing people to vote for the country’s leader. My argument isn’t that the US is the most democratic that a country could possibly be. It’s just simply that it’s more democratic than a parliamentary system.
  Also I’m not sure why you brought up France, since France has a semi-presidential system, not a parliamentary system. And yes, Canada has districts similar to districts for the US House of Representatives. >
  
  
  But again, this is still better than simply not allowing people to vote for the country’s leader.
  
  What's your experience with parliamentary systems? In nearly all cases the parties leaders are known well before the election. My wife is a Japanese citizen and votes in Japan's elections, it's not like it's a random mystery who the executive is gonna be depending on which party wins. She (and every Japanese voter) is voting on who the executive is...as much as we are with our state electors.
  Furthermore, because of the parliamentary system my wife is free to vote for her actual opinion - not worry about the tactics of voting for a party she doesn't actually agree with so the greater evil doesn't win like we have to do in the U.S. I was very jealous that my wife was able to vote for a minority party in the last election - mean while I'm stuck voting for one of the big two so the other guys don't win. Being able to vote for what you actually feel is far more democratic.
  Finally, the fact that parliamentary systems are voting on party platforms and positions instead of on individuals is *more* democratic. It means citizens are actually voting on issues instead of some guys or girl's personality - which is ultimately irrelevant in governing a country.
  Edit:   
  
  since France has a semi-presidential system, not a parliamentary system.
  
  France's legislative branch is literally called Parlement français, which translates to "French Parliment" in English.
  Semi means "half" so what do you think the other half of the "semi-presidental" system is? >
  
  It doesn’t matter if they know the candidates ahead of time when they don’t get to elect them.
  France has a parliament yes. It is not a true parliamentary system. Semi-presidential systems are not the same as parliamentary systems