...Is it rude to double-post? If so, I apologize.

The "Republicans" and "The Tea Party" should obviously form a coalition government.

Denmark is currently ruled by a coalition between the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Danish Peoples Party. The Social Democrats, the Socialist People's Party and some others form the opposition.

The Liberals have the prime minister post and most of the other ministers, the Conservatives have some ministers and the Danish People Party have no ministers. The Danish People Party is too far right to seriously consider joining up with the socialists, so the support the others....most of the time.

Every government in Denmark have been some kind of coalition, at least as far as I know.

Whether or not we have the best Government in the world is irrelevant to this discussion. Just because it's better than the alternatives (hypothetically) doesn't mean we should stop trying to make it better.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head albeit inadvertently. I definitely think that we need at least 3 parties, but I think it might be a good idea to designate separate parties for the House of Representatives and the Senate. And even the President, though I cannot foresee an easy way from keeping them from becoming carbon copies of their counterparts.

The major problem, specifically, is that it is easier for politicians to put down their single opponent than build themselves up. They simply say why the other guys' plan won't work than say why theirs is better.

Here's another radical idea: what if we imposed a limit of 49% for any single party? Then remaining seats are divided amongst remaining parties. Or we can award seats in excess of 49% to the party who received the fewest votes. That would certainly make elections more interesting.

__________________
"Masters of War" by Bob Dylan
"When a man assumes public trust, he should consider himself as public property"
-Thomas Jefferson
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Einstein
"One man with courage is a majority"
-Thomas Jefferson

Why keep to to three? I'm sure there are enough diverse viewpoints in the US to allow more. And why not let the people determine how many parties there are rather than impose a certain number?

Independents seem lost for representation at the moment. And there are a lot of them with no doubt disparate views that are not able to be voiced.

Of course, there have to be limits on the number of parties or you get the paralysis seen in the past in some European governments. We do it primarily by requiring a minimum of 5% of the electorate vote before a party can be represented in our parliament.

It is still a PEOPLE problem. Although a third party has the desirable attributes, people vote for a lesser of two evils, because they believe that the one they voted for will win.

A VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS IS A VOTE FOR EVIL

I have heard it said so many times: "I would rather vote for -------- because he has the attributes that I would like to see in that office. But I didn't vote for him because I didn't think he could win."

Now, how dumb is that?


.

The only possible way is to vote out every incumbent. Change the players of the game because the players we have now suck.

This is exactly why it will be difficult to change anything. The politicians have changed campaign laws to the point where the incumbent has an incredible advantage, and the opposition has to have the expertise and support of the opposing party to even get past the bureaucratic red tape surrounding running for an office.

Campaign legislation reform is the first step towards fixing DC.

Also, we do not have two parties, just two branches of one party. I like a few posts that I have seen dealing with this delimma, especially the ability to avoid the wasted vote mentality.

__________________
I find it to be near impossible for someone to have a valid perception of reality and maintain a clear and consistent preference of one political party over another.

Does the term WMD come to mind? For those who just cringed and said "My God, that guy is a radical S.O.B. and should be censored", I know, I know..
I'm a raging maniac. But that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

__________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson