When our founding fathers constructed our constitution they did so as a real body of politicians. They were far from a homogeneous body working towards the same ends in for our political system. The disagreements between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton throughout the founding of our country should be sufficient evidence of this. One thing they seemed to agree on was that 'factions' or political parties would be detrimental to a successful, effective, and prompt Democratic government. Yet either their lack of cooperation, even at the Constitutional Convention, or there lack of foresight kept them from developing a solution to this essential problem. The founding fathers themselves would fall victim to 'faction' and from that point on Political Parties were ingrained in our political system. I make this observation with out the intention of vilifying the framers of our Nation. It was through no fault of their own, but rather because of an essential flaw in our electoral system, that Parties developed. The problem with a two party system is that it is by nature a system of conflict. When one party is in power it is in the other parties interest to block every move their opponent tries to make. That way, in the next election, they can point to their opponent's ineffectiveness as a rationale for why they should be voted into office. The result is a government filled with bitter rivals who are more interesting in fighting each other than in serving the people. Because of this our government is increasingly ineffective, out of touch with the American people, and unpopular with it's constituents. Single Selection ballots and all or nothing Legislature elections are the root of the problem. Most Americans take it for granted that elections are a single choice between candidates. You cannot vote for Obama and McCain. There is an alternative. Instant Run Off voting is a process through which voters rank order their choice in candidates. When the ballots are totaled (if no candidate has a majority of 1st place votes) the candidate with the fewest 1st choice votes is eliminated in the first round. In the second round if no candidate has a majority of 2nd place votes, the candidate with the fewest 2nd place votes is eliminated. The process continues until a final candidate is selected. This candidate is not necessarily the candidate with the greatest number of 1st place votes, but he will always be the candidate most preferred by the country as a whole. This allows third party candidates a much better chance of winning. Our current system produces a candidate that (more often than not) 51% of the population adores and 49% abhors. Instant run off voting produces a candidate that more of the country is happy with. The second necessary change is proportional electoral rewards. If a Presidential candidate wins 51% of the vote in a state he should be awarded 51% of that states electoral votes, rather than all of them. For the house of representatives voting by district should be abandoned in favor of voting as a state and proportionally dispersing seats. If Democrats win 55% of the votes, Republicans win 35%, and a Third Party wins the remaining 10%... the democrats get 55% of the seats, republicans get 35%, and the Third Party gets 10% (or the closest approximation there of). The result would be a government in which smaller party candidates had a better chance in gaining office. Because of this government would be transformed from a system based on conflict to one based on cooperation. In a 3 or 4 party government no single Party can gather enough votes to pass legislation on its own. They must build a collation with one or more of the other parties to build sufficient political power. You then have a government in which the goal is working together and in which candidates for reelection are judged based on what they have accomplished instead of how little there opponent has. Does a government that is more active, more cooperative, and better able to change as the will of the people changes sound appealing? What do you think?