If you view elections as a kind of survey/poll then in every election in the US none-of-the-above beats all of the available candidates. That's proof that the two party system fails. A plurality (often majority) always vote against both parties.

Well, there is now a concerted effort to flooding the Red States with immigrants, who tend to vote democrat in large numbers in the first two generations, and legislation in some blue states to alter the electoral voting away from winner-take all. So if your goal is a totalitarian one-party government system, we may be on our way to it.

Grunch: America has no weaknesses, only less-strong strengths.

Grunch: America has no weaknesses, only less strong strengths.

Can you flesh out some of the details on this "concerted effort?"

Regarding the bolded: 1) WTF are you talking about? 2) If you're talking about the electoral college, how is this a bad thing in your mind?

A. You seem to not be from a state with a southern border to Mexico, but I would have thought you would have learned of the democrat administration's opposition to attempts to vet undocumented folks for disease, criminal record, and similar opposition to preventing folks who just seem to be here for the free stuff to enter.

B. I realized that I erred on this one. Where I typed "blue," I should have typed "swing." (Why would democrats want to split the electoral votes in blue states? Duh!) That should clear it up for you. Sorry.

In my mind, it's a bad thing because I like it when people in all 57 states have a voice in our government. I respect your right to disagree.

no, no, no Americas biggest weakness is her gun culture...

57 states?

An irreverent reminder of an Obama gaffe in the 2008 campaign.

Ah 2008, the good old days when people wanted to cling to their guns and religion.

I apologize for wrecking your fun as I realize facts tend to throw a wet blanket on right wing political rhetoric but the Obama administration has been the most aggressive at deportation in decades.

My archaic laptop can't pull up your link, but I'm going to go out on a limb and bet it's one of those articles where the obama administration counts rejected entries at the border and tries to call them deportations, rendering the numbers worthless.

This sounds like a typical obama claim, somewhat like the one where he tries to take credit for the increased oil production, as if he invented fracking, the way that al gore invented the internet.

If I am mistaken, and your article gives the correct numbers, then I'll stand corrected. But I doubt that I am.

Google is hard. Ignorance is easy.

Oh, my goodness gwacious. Are you trying to hurt my poor feelings?

Many of the reasons we have not had a Hitler in the U.S., is that we have a two party system and elections take a long time. Be careful for what you wish. You may not like Bush II or Reagan but at least deep down you know they are not bad guys.

Neither of those statements make sense?

How does a two party over a 3 or 4 party system keep a Hitler out of the USA?
Also how do long drawn out elections instead of calling an election and three months later you vote protect you from that.

Bush yeah I think outside politics nice guy. But he lied to the people to start a war that has led to........

American politicians are only loyal to their fundraisers.

This means the corporations control elections and politicians.

They must represent the needs of the people.

Ignorance and apathy of the voters are the biggest weaknesses. Everything else pails. True of all democracies tho.

The political system has been rotting for some time and nothing anyone can do short of a revolution will change it. Nothing but pure scumbags in office and a bunch of donkeys that follow them, but I think that this result is some sort of mathematical inevitability. Democracy does not work when the majority have the memory and attention span of 5 year olds.

It reduces the chances. If Germany only had a 2 party system they may have survived. Hitler was actually losing popularity. Remember the Federal Reserve of Germany printed and stole everyones money, enriching insiders who had access to cheap debt who were able to buy real assets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...on,_March_1933

There is no reason he lied to start a war. Many of his insiders wanted more defense money the same way liberals support Pikettys book to steal more education money. Hosts like Randi Rhodes (a liberal talk radio host) were always blasting Bush I for not going into Baghdad to complete the job. So in fact, Bush did exactly what Randi Rhodes wanted to start a war with Iraq to capture Baghdad. There were many liberals that said the same thing, possibly Bill Maher. The vote was near unanimous in the congress. Yes, many thought this was only if Hans Blitz found WMD. Think back to 2001, do you remember any liberals that supported the war? They almost all did because it was the popular vote.

That sounds like the U.S. Federal Reserve. QE is great for the top 1%. Not so good for everyone else.

Comparing the House of Commons to the House of Representatives, there is one Canadian representative for every ~114k citizens. There is one US Representative for every ~733k citizens. That means a US House member wields nearly seven times as much power as their Canadian equivalent. That makes the US less democratic, not more, and obviously, people are going to fight that much harder and meaner for positions of such greater power. It also makes it that much easier for the rich to buy that power when they only have to buy one person instead of seven.

Comparing Canada's system is weak also. Quebec has such a large influence for such a small population.

Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason - Mark Twain