Thank you, Vince, and yes I am an immigrant, too. From the West, but then from a real democracy and not from a two-party system.

I know you do not have both eyes open about the West, but rather like a Cyclops you see one and the same thing, you’re missing depth perception. That makes it hard to communicate, and at the same time I am glad you have strong feelings about other realities in the world and bring forth their positive characteristics. That makes it fun for me.

Still, concepts need to be used properly, there can indeed be solid ground underneath everyone's feet, and we can make concepts the same all across the world.

Elitism is alive and kicking in two-party systems because just like China and many other places not everyone can get represented at the table.

In Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain that is not the case. Everyone picks their own representative, and will get either that representative or a representative strongly supported by the candidate the voter picked.

When there are 150 seats, for instance, then the voters are represented for 99.3 percent by their choices, and that is the bare minimum.

So, that is what I call a democracy. Everything else is not a democracy because the word democracy means a system of representation.

• A two-party system is not a system of representation because voters compete with the voters for the win, which means there are plenty voters that get nothing. That is then not a system of representation, not a democracy. There should not be a game involved in picking one's representative. UK and US are pure two-party systems with here and there a glimmer of a third party of importance. In my dictionary, they are not democracies; they do not fit the definition.
• In China, the eight parties will have been approved by the elite; dissident voices can therefore be expressed in certain directions only and not in all directions. That means China is also not a democracy. I am reminded of East Germany with its three communist parties. Voters flocked to the less rigid one, and there were not any other flavors allowed at all.

Here is an image of the world through democratic eyes. I made it myself; I did not capture everything perfectly because of being human myself and having sources that I had to sift through; it was hard work. But you get the drift. There are very few pure democracies in the world.

It should also show you that the West is not all one and the same.

Canada is an interesting story because they have more than two parties in the results. I am certain that the French speaking quarter of the population has something to do with that (they have their own two parties), and the enormous stretched-out reality of where people live (most live within miles of the border with the US and the rest is not populated by humans much) explains it further. That means that regional differences gel better, including political ones.

Canada has Napoleonic rule in the French-speaking part, and case law in the English-speaking part, another major distinction occurring in ‘the West’. It also puts an ugly eye on US and UK because their own laws do not need to be in compliance with one another. They start somewhere willy-nilly and build on it. In most of Europe and French Canada, laws cannot be in conflict with one another, a major improvement and for me the legal distinction between the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment. US and UK still dwell in the Middle Ages in some respect; they are not enlightened in some respect.