Reference no: EM133347012

Question: During down time in election-year coverage, some news commentator never fails to note that Americans are fed up with the two-party system and the Electoral College, and that change needs to happen, etc. etc. What about it, then? Are there any possible advantages to doing things as we've been dong them for some time, now? Defenders of the two-party structure often note that our winner-takes-all system eliminates the need for setting up coalition governments, such those which are common in Germany, Italy, Israel and other parliamentary-style governments found elsewhere in the world. All of the infighting, they observe, takes place within the parties, and not in the government. As for the Electoral College, defenders of it note that without it, we'd likely be obliged to have several run-off votes every election cycle as France usually does, since we'd need to eliminate around 15 candidates at the national, rather than at the party level. And campaign financing, others note, would be better managed if the government simply funded parties and thus eliminate the corruption that comes with private contributions. What do you think? Would you do things differently than we do now? And if so, how would you make it happen?