Maybe this can bring everybody together
 

I am curious, with all of the polarization in our political world, how does everyone feel about this?

Best for whom? Each system has pros and cons which work better for different populaces, and what's 'good' for one group might be considered 'bad' for another.

For example, highly religious but uneducated masses would probably be better of with benevolent theocratic dictatorship. A highly educated populace might do better with a real democracy.

I voted for a dictatorship. The ideal form of government is benevolent dictatorship. Now, if you can find a benevolent dictator, that's great. But this form of government works only in the thoretical world of Ideal.

Based on what? Education does not equal reasonableness - witness the confrontational dispute settlement in this country.

Benevolent dictatorship is best for expediency etc. I voted independent in the poll because it's most workable in this country.

I will elaborate a bit- this is for America in 2006, with all of the realities of the world and human nature figured in.

The concept of benevolent dictator is, like a lot of good ideas, of no use in reality because we all know what happens with this. Unless we can get a robot to be a dictator, then things will always go bad.

I voted for no parties, though odds are after 50 years or so of that we'd see it also has serious shortcomings.

I'm just sick of being forced to choose between the lesser of two corrupt power hungry morons.

+1. We need to get rid of these massive political machines that are ruining this country... before it takes the country down with them.

i think for one thing, there is a problem is with how the US president get's elected : not by absolute number of votes.

on absolute votes, Dubbya would not have made president to begin with
dunno how his second term worked out in absolute numbers though...

I'm with Lothar, but they are hard to find. I would make a great one! Send the women my way, Baltar style!

We do not have a "2 Party System (as today)," just ask Joe Leiberman.

If we had a true two party sytem, then many of the people that were elected Tuesday night may have not been elected. The different independent parties on the ballot would have been the swing vote in those very close races.

I think dictatorship, as long as I get to be the dictator.

I totally disagree.

The electoral college is perfectly fine.

Besides, direct democracy is about the most overreacting and hyperventilating form of governmental stupidity i can possibly imagine.

You make a good case. Its too bad that, especially the higher you get in the U.S. Gubment, the less likely it is that someone outside of the 2 parties will ever actually hold office.

But you are correct, the independents can urely screw things up for one of them. I guess that's a start.

You make a good case. Its too bad that, especially the higher you get in the U.S. Gubment, the less likely it is that someone outside of the 2 parties will ever actually hold office.

But you are correct, the independents can urely screw things up for one of them. I guess that's a start.

Maybe a good suggestion would be to read the Federalist papers.
that's the owners manual for our government written by James madison and Alexander Hamilton.
They designed our government way back about 225 years ago.
Reading the federalist papers woud explain in great detail what our government was supposed to be and what the theory and thought was behind the 2 party system.
IMO, no other collection of writing shows as much complete and unarguable brilliance and genius (except the bible).
Now if we as a country could just read and follow the manual so to speak, our current system would work very well.
You know the old saying, RTFM. That should be a requirement for citizenship (even if you are born here) and a prerequisite for voting IMO.

You should also read at the same time:

The anti-Federalist papers (What the opposition thought, plus these letters were the back and forth with the Federist papers)

and

Creating the Bill of rights - The house congressional record from the 1st congress, in the discussion of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Many Anti-Federalists were elected to the first congress, with the specific goal of limiting the power of the new Constitutional government. Their agenda, for the most part, passed (10 of the 12 Amendments were passed). Proposed amendment #2 was actually passed in the 1990s, which prevent congress from voting themselves a pay raise, directly.

One of the most interesting pieces was part of the "2nd amendment" which went by the way side: Conscientious Objection!

Oh, and I would prefer the original method of electing President and Vice President. Highest vote total becomes President. 2nd Highest becomes Veep. I think it would have been interesting if Gore was Veep under Bush during term 1 and Kerry was Veep now.