Perhaps the American republicrats, together with American Libertarians, together form one of the poles, from a globalist perspective? The conventional American political spectrum, within itself, is pretty narrow - it's an American box, outside of which few American voters seem to be able to take anything seriously - shades of American exceptionalism spread far beyond the perceived limits of that pseudo-religious doctrine. This is particularly dangerous thanks to American economic, political, military and media/cultural power.

Could the Democratic community please include details of how the US electoral system works for democratic voters and emphasize its not based on 'popular votes.'

@Vicar: You pose a request which is difficult to answer. You ask "the Democratic community" to "include details of how the US electoral system works."

Firstly, "Democratic," or perhaps you mean "Democrat." A "Democrat" is a member of of the "Democratic Party," which I am not.

Next, at it's core, the US is a "representative republic" and is not a democracy.

I like these definitions: "In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. A republic is that form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated." Madison in Federalist 10 addresses this issue.

There never was the intent to elect a US President by popular vote. Lincoln was elected in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote.

@Geezer: the idea of a democratic republic can be a direction in which to move, whatever Madison, or anybody else, has to say. It's not a bad one, but it does involve controlling massive gaps in economic power and ownership, and the Democrats & Republicans in the US have no desire to tackle this in any meaningful way, either domestically or internationally. Nations are boxes, the walls ultimately constructed and maintained by those who serve those who run them.
Meanwhile, hell, maybe the Democrats - hell, maybe even the Republicans - can, occasionally and accidentally, provide chinks into which wedges can be driven - but you have to bring your own hammer.

@Alien: Define "democratic republic" for me.

One where representatives are chosen and removed by everybody sitting around a level table, with open access to information and ideas. First you have to construct the table - admittedly, a chicken-or-egg proposition. Requires mutual cooperation, and not just an agreement that people should follow orders, to construct such a table.

@Alien: I can see your difficulty in defining the US from your Socialist perspective. The biggest problem is dealing with how the US succeeded so well in being both powerful and wealthy whilst Socialism, central planning, coercive control of people never has.

I see. But surely you don't mean "everybody" do you? You mean a bunch of self proclaimed elites, confident they have all the knowledge and answers, Hayek called this conceit, deciding what is best for the rest.

By "mutual cooperation" do you mean harmonious submission to one, or another ideology, along with coerced agreement that people follow orders?

The biggest problem is probably the narrow idea we have of 'success'. Coercion is a matter of form - there are many. 'Socialism' is a word, for which there are quite a few bad definitions - perhaps it too is so corrupted that employing the term causes more confusion than enlightenment.
Be glad to discuss it with you around a level table. Tables at bars are pretty level, at least more so than the ones provided by the major American political parties, which are owned by the parties - which, in turn, are owned.

@ Geezer, answers to questions in your last comment: no and no.