<p>Edwards/Obama '08!!!</p>
<p>I disagree with the post about parliamentary democracy. Having more "factions" represented would mean more voices. It blows my mind how someone can expect to pigeonhole all of the decisions on political issues into just two parties. Having multiple parties encourages something long lost in American politics: compromise and rational thought given to certain issues. You get various alliances of different parties on different issues, which more effectively represents how the people that elect leaders would act. I have trouble believing for one instant that everyone in America has one of two mindsets on every political issue.
This creates a disconnect with the people, and you get what we have--gerrymandered uncompetitive districts, among the lowest voter turnouts in the world (where there are representative governments of course), political corruption on both sides of the aisle, and general discrimination against intellectual minorities. </p>
<p>Take Canada for example, their leader would have gone for an unprecedented fourth term, but the corruption that his administration was blamed for caused parliament to vote a voice of no confidence. They held new elections and now his party is out--the conservatives won the most seats. But that doesn't mean that the conservatives can control everything the government does, because they will need Liberals, NDP, or BQ party members in order to pass legislation. This means they will have rationally be able to explain their policies and compromise. They won't be able to sneak by tax cuts for the wealthy, or tack environmentally destructive measures on to bills they try to pass in the wee hours of the morning.</p>
<p>It is this accountability and prudent thinking that our current system lacks. [End Rant #2]</p>
<p>By the way, amen to the rant about what the Democratic Party needs to do, I agree fully!</p>