I am glad to see discussion of Volek's proposal. I have referenced TDG in some of my articles, but have never written a specific article about it.

As this article pointed out, the party system in both the American and the parliamentary forms of democracy have become problematic for the functioning of democracy itself. Volek's TDG would transform the system of government. It would replace both the American system and the parliamentary system.

I am convinced that we can do democracy better. I have nothing to say against TDG. I also think, though, that we can improve the functioning of democracy with less sweeping changes. Proportional voting and other ideas go to how elections can get done.

It occurred to me a while back that a better approach to the functions of political parties at the national level could be another source of improvement.

To that end, I came up with the idea of a single national political party, with formally organized caucuses within it that would be the source of candidates for every national elective office. While 'single party systems' have been associated with Nazis and Bolsheviks, this one would be absolutely democratic: any citizen old enough to vote could join the party (for free), and anyone who was not a member would still have every political right other than the right to run for any national elective office.

As I put it at the end of that article of mine (written with the U.S.. of which I am a citizen, in mind, but applicable to any democratic nation):

I do think this proposal would combine the best of the parliamentary system and the system we currently have in [the U.S.A.]. The former encourages more active participation in politics by more citizens but makes party politics too much a part of governing. Combined with having a separate party for just about every political position imaginable, the unwieldy ‘coalition politics’ it generates can make government far too unstable. Our system in the U.SA. is supposed to mitigate that kind of instability by including many points of view and political positions in each of the two major parties, but of late it has not been doing a good job of that. Partisanship has made the two-party system a fault line threatening to reduce to rubble our democratic political process. At the same time, our system leaves most citizens, including even most members of both major parties, as passive participants left only to choose between the potential candidates that the powers that be in those parties bring forth. This proposal, with limitless caucuses but those caucuses existing outside of government itself, would combine the participatory engagement that having numerous, small political parties encourages with the stability of our [U.S.] system, in which party politics is not supposed to be such a large part of actual governing.