Compromise is the first step to a solution.

It should be noted that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, but that's neither here nor there. "You reject the idea of a majority getting decisions made too much on one side of the political spectrum, and how this disagrees with the american population as a whole." I don't dislike the majority getting what they want. I dislike the minority getting nothing due to being outvoted. Ideally, a responsible government should compromise and service all groups equally within reason. However, all too often politicians are so busy keeping their job that they forget to do their job. "The house of representatives, and to a certain extent the Senate, were built so that as the times changed and people moods changed certain groups would get their views passed into law. The Congress IS a reflection of the majority and the fact remains that any agreement made whatsoever would leave one party getting shafted." This is, of course, assuming that there are only two answers, black and white. With few exceptions, however, there is a middle ground which can satisfy members of both groups. This middle ground is largely ignored. Not everyone is hard-left or hard-right. As a moderate myself, I am utterly annoyed by the sheer level of polarity and our system's apparent intolerance for moderation. As for George Washington, you're right. That was sloppy verification on my part. However, my point there still stands: Washington despised the polarity and lack of cooperation which political parties tend to bring about. This is best expressed with an entry from his Farewell Address: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." Put simply, when two factions in a country compete for power over each other without cooperation, nothing good will happen. If you'll notice, the average American citizen has little to no faith in the legislative branch. Without any doubt in my mind, I blame polarity and hostility between the two parties. If only they could think of each other as co-workers, rather than enemies, our faith in Congress might one day be restored. "As times change new opinions and problems will form and each and every citizen has the free will and right to empathize with whoever the want. They can also defend their opinions with their right to elect representatives." If you vote for the losing side, you're not being represented the way you want. The least the winner could do is pay at least some attention to those who voted for the other guy. "Your opinion has merit only when national crisis looms" I fail to see how paying attention to ALL voices and not just those who have the most votes is a silly idea when the country is stable. The federal government has a basic and unavoidable responsibility to serve ALL of its citizens and not just the ones it agrees with. "The government serves the people, it is a reflection of the public consensus and attitude. " Picture this. Candidate 1 is the color yellow. Candidate 2 is the color purple. Twenty people vote for Candidate 1, and thirty vote for Candidate 2. The color purple clearly won. However, two fifths of the populace is in support of yellow and yet absolutely no yellow exists in the color purple. Without compromise, the "losers" get shut out with no representation. Compromise is the responsible thing to do, and while there's no legal way to enforce it, Americans as a whole would be far happier if it was practiced more frequently than it currently is.