America's political system is immensely flawed

1.America is a Republic, that is true. Now look around the world. Look around every single democratic country there is. A republic is founded on the principles of democracy. Hence, a republic has a well-nigh equivalent definition as democracy, only in the fact that republic states as the organization of the state, when democracy simply means the philosophical idea. There are usually more than two sides to every issue. Not every issue can be so easily placed into its appropriate camp. Typically, things are not so black and white. We need a legislature that can adequately represent the diversity of the people. This includes more than two agendas. Some issues get left out of the public discussion all together because they do not fit into either party's platform.The lack of choice creates a "lesser of two evils" voting strategy. It is simply an embarrassment to the legislature of the U.S.A. when people are elected into office not because they were the best person for the job but because they were not the worst. With every race coming down to only two front runners, the public doesn't have any real alternative to business as usual. Voters need to have a real decision to make. A two party system doesn't provide this. It results in an "Us vs. Them" battle on every issue. Just because the Democrats are for an issue, that doesn't mean that it should be voted down by the Republicans. When politicians vote along party lines they are doing everyone a disservice. The american representatives are elected so that they can judge for themselves what is at stake with each topic and then make a decision based on their conclusions. Because of the two party system, this rarely happens. Politicians feel pressured to vote along with the rest of the party, regardless of what they think. The result of this is decisions get made by a few of the party leaders rather than by the individual party members. In a two party system, the party in control of the legislature has too much power. The american people are now fare too accomodated to the two-party system, even if it isn't absolute. There are third-parties, but none of them stand a chance thanks to the ignorance of the proleteriat. 2. You fail to see, that the electoral college is an extreme problem because the eventual vote doesn't count. You didn't refute my statement: If a candidate gets, say, 5% or 10% and the other gets 95% or 90% in the popular vote, it is still possible for the loser to claim power. (see http://en.wikipedia.org...). As the link will tell you, in the 2000 democratic election, George W. Bush received most of the electoral vote, but less of the popular vote, proving once more that the electoral college does not WORK. Your statement that the state decides what their representative elector should vote for is false. The electoral candidates are not allowed to vote judging by their own opinion, rather by that of which they were convinced AFTER they were elected. So there is a large chance that they were corrupted, not to mention the voting is ANONYMOUS. So if an elector promises to vote for one candidate, he can simply vote for another one. American politics in a nutshell... (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com... if you are not convinced) Now to refute your ,,positives' 1.The two-party system, as I said, has its positives, but the case of india is far different. If the two party system was abolished in America, the states would decide in their own frame. It wouldn't be a country-spread election. India is not seperated into different states... I would propose that every state would cast its vote in unison and the candidate that gathers most states would win (so if in a state a candidate got 49% and the other received 51%, the one with the latter percentage would gain that state, in the end, counting the states-this is not similar to the electoral system (read my argument on that and you'll know why). 2. The third party candidates don't stand a chance because : 1.They don't have enough money for campaigns (most of them) 2.Even if they do, most of the american proleteriat isn't even AWARE that there are third parties 3.Never in the history of the US has the electoral college cast 1 vote in favour of the third parties (proving once again my point of corruption) 4.Media propaganda 5.there is something to the "wasted vote fallacy". In tight elections between the major parties, a vote for a Libertarian candidate siphons off support from the major party candidate they are closest too, in this case the Republican one. The Virginia governor election last month was an example of this. Although the Libertarian candidate only got 8% of the vote, it was enough to split the vote and allow the Democrat to win, thus this enables the party the voters oppose to win and they don't want that, that's why voting for the larger party is a sure win... That's it for WHY the third parties never win and now, a further refutation :P 3.The parties do fight between each other, yes. But you are aware that these fights usually involve: bribing, attacking issues that they might actually agree with and of course, the main weapon of all parties IN THE WORLD: personality assasination...This is when a candidate has done something that he himself may have found immoral and the opposing party continues with milking it...They keep mentioning it, calling him a hypocrite, a liar...Is this really constructive? Hope you can find a convincing counter-argument :D -benko