[jyl]

I dislike multi-party (more than two) systems because they tend to lead to political gridlock, as disproportionate power ends up in the hands of small parties whose 5% is the "swing vote". Since you can't do anything without stepping on 5% of the toes, you can't do anything. Examples abound - my favorite is Israel where small parties of religious conservatives can basically veto anything Sharon wants to do, because their few percent is critical to his coalition. Italy is another example.

This is especially so in parliamentary systems, but would be so in Congress as well. We already have a checks and balances system that tends to cause gridlock. We can't afford to make the situation worse.

I like the idea that when one party wins an election cycle, it really wins. Then it gets to carry out its agenda, and the people get to see the consequences, and there is a clear choice come the next election cycle.

I admit that it has been painful to watch George Bush (1) start a war, on false pretexts, that threatens to be our next Vietnam, (2) through huge tax cuts and huge spending increases, sink the country into a several-hundred-billion-dollar structural deficit, (3) alienate many if not most of our friends in other countries, (4) become Al Qaeda's #1 recruiting tool, and (5) ignore, or pretend to care about and then ignore, boring domestic needs like the environment, education, AIDS, etc.

But, hey, at least he has a clear record to run on. No-one can say Bush and the conservative Republicans haven't had control of government these four years.