I don't want a parliamentary system, this is not my case. I love our presidential system and that's why I'm so concerned about helping us voters have more choices. The two-party system works fine if you want to govern and the multi-party system worries more about representation. As I said a few days before, if we ever have any type of PR, say a mixed system, it doesn't mean we must switch to a parliamentary system. I think Germany's 50/50 mixed system has coalitions as the norm; if we ever have a mixed system, I hope it would be something like 70% from mixed districts using related systems (STV for MMDs & IRV for SMDs), keeping the direct constituency link for small areas and 30% from state open lists, where each voter could vote for a candidate or party. There would be nothing parliamentarian about switching gradually to an American type mixed system. I insist that we need to keep single party governments but open representation to parties. No, I don't mean totalitarianism.
213257
becuase it is the only choice we have for now
357373
We are not a Democracy. We are a representative republic. It would lead to chaos if everything that was decided went up to vote. This way you vote the representative in and if the decisions are bad ones you vote them back out. The system has a lot of checks and balances so things that are controversial can't be done quickly.
50690
our forefathers set forth in the Constitution how the government was to be run, and leaders selected, which is how we do it today.\n\nYou can't have a country run by everybody individually - leaders must be selected, and through the election process the majority of the population decides who those leaders are.\n\nIt's not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than most.
203257
Simply, we have a constitution that states we have a president.  It is possible to change it, but understand that throughout the world, we have one of the most stable elected government.  We have two choices because we have two major political parties.  There has been other parties with different platforms, but those platforms were absorbed by the major parties.  Having too many parties is not good.  Just like having too many choices.
5043
Our political system actually filters out decent, ethical and talented candidates.  We have elections, but no democracy in the USA (elected officials generally represent lobbyists and crony friends).  A possible solution is to employ the jury system (random selection of representatives) to fill our legislatures and have them select the President.  Realistically, of course, nothing like this will happen so we remain destined to suffer from Presidents who are so beholden to a few that no real leadership can emerge.  Yours is a great question, however, and the more folks ask it the more likely some changes will result.
172201
You should try a Parliamentary Democracy! Which is in pretty much the rest of the world.) Trying not to get into grave detail, A mutli-party system probably wouldn't work as well in America as it does in other countries. The main reason why is because in America we have relaxed party discipline, meaning that politicians in America can vote however they want to, they do not have to listen to the party. In a Parliamentary Democracy, if you vote against the party a lot, you are moved down lower in the overall party rank (which means they get less funding for reelection/many other consequences). The majority party has 50%+ of the seats in Parliament and pretty much all of the politicians vote on party lines getting legislation passed fairly fast and easy. If we the U.S. adopted your form of government, it would be hard for the government to agree on one issue and get it passed. Also, as history shows with America's current form of government, the party that controls the White House could be different than the party that controls one or both Houses of Congress. \n\nI don't understand the last part about single party governments, but as history shows they are not the most effienct way to govern.
184585
Here is the problem... "HOW".\n\nDo you honestly think that big corporate interests would allow the possibility that our government would be changed?  \n\nOur current system of government exists for the benefit of big business.  Corporate welfare runs this country.  Any attempt to change this government runs the risk that:\n\n1.  the new government could be potentially unstable.  Not good for investment.  Our economy would have severe problems.\n\n2.  how would we decide on a new form of government?  We would never be able to agree on anything as a population\n\n3.  So "who" would decide if we can't?  Big Business!  They would step in and we would create a government even more corrupt than before!\n\n4.  Reality:  The average American prefers safety and security.  I doubt that they would be interested in eliminating the current government.  I imagine that most would actively fight to keep the old one.  Look at the rampant scandals currently going on... and a significant portion of the population still supports their actions!\n\n5.  The media.  If you actually managed to start a grass-roots effort to oust the government and form a new one... how will you communicate your messages nationwide?  When Ross Perot ran for President, he HAD TO SUE to get his commercials on the air!!!  Do you honestly think that the media corporations would allow such a movement to gain significant steam?\n\nI applaud your enthusiasm... I recommend voting your conscience (i.e. vote for a third party) in future elections and spread your message to friends and neighbors.  However, I think that corporations have replaced human beings as the dominant life-form on this planet.
370670
I would go for a change: a mixture of the current system and a component of proportional representation. This would mean an overall majority would be unlikely. That is a good thing in itself, so rotten laws are not forced through Parliament.
655144
Your entire argument is valid and common among most young adults my age all over the country.  I really just do not want to see the Election to be a circus, with the Democratsz thinking they have found the key to their salvation after all this time by putting Hillary Clinton into office.  That would be the largest scale mistake EVER made in Elections History.  It really is choosing the lessor or two equals, and it's so hard to see the difference in the 2 candidates you are choosing from becuase they all sound the same.  Pray, I do, Pray for a smarter Nation to get its head out of the hole in the ground and pay attention to whats going on  out there.  I think the most important thing is to Vote, and clearly educate yourself on the people running before you rush to push a button come November 2008.
204405
If you want a repuglican congress and president into the far future split the democrtatic party and that is what you would get. We must all stand together and fight the oppresion of the repuglican party. I am tired of their idea of supply side economics. It just helps the rich and leaves the poor and middle class behind.
246148
1.  bicameral sistem is good when a population is divided into several (2,3,4 but not too much) major (non political) groups.  that is like multynational state, or federative state...   So in this case the bicameral parliament makes it possible taking into consideration the interests of several groups (espessially in federal countries - interests of the Union (the whole population), and specific interests of States (population of the states)...\nbut if the population is unified - the bicameral system makes it burockratic, and all the processes are being slow downed...\n\n2. other question is Presidential - Parliamenar... that is a major question, and no one can for sure say which is better.\nin case of peresidential republic, a lot (but not all) is depending on the person of President (and how much population trust him) - so if he is a good one, he can change a lot, fight corruption, etc.  but if he is a bad one, so it will be hard to stop him doin all those terrible things we see in some countries.\nin the case of Parliamtary republic - it is more democratic, but less effective - so it will be very hard to change something to better (although if the population get united, and tries to do something togeter, and they trust each other - everything can be accomplished), but they won't be able to make as big a mess, as a single superpower president can....
177260
Revoultion is long over due in this country, but the only way to succeed in one is for it to be peacful and through the ballot box. We have got to do away with the twoparty system. The Dems are too liberal and the Repubs are too conservative.
173916
The 2 party system was not the idea of our founding fathers. George Washington was actually VERY opposed to it. There have been some contenders recently who has challenged it, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader most recently. I, for one, am sick of being forced to vote for either idiot #1 or idiot #2 when there is not really all that much difference between them. I don't think we need to strengthen the 2-party system. I think we need to abolish it and start over.
420624
Of course. I think the 2 party system sucks but it kinda works that we have to extreme parties that tend to balance each other out. The weaker side always has to be more relentless to somewhat keep that balance.
390956
I voted Straight democratic ticket for the first time in my life, because I am fed up with the soaring national debt, the focus on the war on terror, focus on tax cuts instead of providing incentives for lower income Americans, the scandals in the Republican party, and the sad state of the American family values. I also feel that it is dangerous to have no checks and balances between the two political parties when one party dominates the legislative and executive branches of government. My primary source of information is the Internet. We do not have TV and I very seldom read newspapers.
440059
Why not??  If they can SPLIT, then there's no reason you can't have two organize themselves into one.\nOur current major parties were once all part of the same party called the "Democratic-Republicans".
586082
It sux we only get two choices.....Why cant we have more?  People just vote the lesser of two evils....No one is really ever happy with the choices.  We vote holding our noses.....