The Two party system in the United States does not adequately represent the people.

Looks like we're going to wrap this one up in near-record time! Ah, well...it's been a pleasure. Only a few things left to say, it seems, and then we'll send this one to the voters...;-) First, and once again: "1) ಠ_ಠ" Whatever it is you're trying to say here, it's simply not coming through - maybe it's a case of different browsers or some such, but there's simply no way for me to respond to something I can't read. (I'm using IE on Windows XP here, so I suspect there are a number of other people out there who also are unable to make and sense of this part.) "2) "no real impediments" This is one point we will disagree on, the existence of the two dominant incumbent parties are what impede new parties from gaining greater support, two party systems encourage the dominant parties to revert to mudslinging when dealing with the parties and the greater parties often take the issues that minority parties champion and champion those issues themselves." But how is it, exactly, that the mere existence of two dominant parties are impeding new ones, IF, as you say, the American public is not satisfied with the representation they receive from the major parties? Getting the attention of the public comes down to basically one thing - money - and while it's certainly true that the "dominant" parties control awfully big piles of it, IF there is widespread dissatisfaction as you seem to be claiming, a viable "third party" should at least be able to raise enough to make itself heard to SOME degree. Let's face it, the evidence is that either the majority of Americans are satisfied with their current choices, or they simply do not care enough to give support to an alternative. Either way, they are getting precisely the representation they deserve and appear to be asking for. There are exceptions, of course; again, witness the successes, small though they may be in comparison, of the larger "third parties" such as the Greens and the Libertarians. New parties cannot displace the old overnight, but these two at least seem to have a shot at positioning themselves as viable alternatives to the status quo. Look at the impact Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, had on the 2000 Presidential election. He didn't win, obviously, but his candidacy clearly affected the course of the election and no doubt affected the positions of the candidates of the two major parties. What more would you expect of a "third party" at this point? Nader took nearly 3% of the popular vote, more than the margin between the two "major" tickets and certainly enough to have significantly affected the outcome of this election. It is clearly NOT just a "two party" system. One other reason that many Americans find the current choices acceptable, in terms of representing their interests, is that the two currently-dominant parties ARE large enough to provide a fairly wide array of options even within themselves. Look at the current Presidential race as an example: on the Democratic side, 3 candidates in a virtual dead heat for the lead, and at least 4 or 5 others who have gained some degree of national attention. On the Republican side, a similar situation - an equally-large slate of nationally-known candidates, and even less of a clear front-runner at this point. It is not surprising that the public isn't looking to other parties right now - they have a considerable range of choice being presented by the two major parties! This isn't because the majors are "muscling out" the minor parties - again, IF there were a sufficient number of voters unable to find acceptable representation from any candidate in the majors, they (and their money) would certainly wind up with an alternative party. There is no impediment to this, as is clear from the fact that it has frequently happened in the past. Ralph Nader in 2000, as noted above. George Wallace in 1968. John Anderson in 1980. H. Ross Perot in both 1992 and 1996, with the '92 run resulting in the birth of the Reform Party. (That run was significant for another reason - Perot wound up with over half as many votes as the Republican candidate, George H. W. Bush, which went a long way toward demonstrating the real viability of third-party candidacy and again clearly influencing the positions of the two "major-party" candidates.) The mere fact that the two dominant parties ARE dominant is not evidence of an impediment to a third party being successful, and as shown there have been numerous examples of fairly successful challenges by these "alternative party" candidates. But the continued success of the existing major parties IS certainly evidence that they are doing an acceptable job in the eyes of most of the American voters. You can hardly fault them for being good at what they're supposed to be doing.