Wake me up when 3rd parties aren't run by crazy people more concerned with ideology than governing. The wonderful thing about our plurality based system is that it pretty much guarantees there will be two parties that have to spend most of their efforts appealing to moderate voters while radicals are shut out. The electoral college reinforces this since the most moderate voters in the most moderate states can make or break an election. I'd much rather have two centrist parties fight for a majority than see a moderate party end up with a plurality and having to enter into a coalition government with a communist or neofascist party. Multiparty systems can leave radical parties that have relatively few seats with far more power than is healthy simply because they have enough to sway the balance of power.

America's governing system was established with a bias towards moderation and divided in a way that promotes gridlock. A party that has the House may not have the Senate or Presidency. A party that has all three might be obstructed if they don't have 60/100 votes in the Senate by a minority party's filibuster. The Supreme Court can reign in Congressional overstep and is largely immune to sudden shifts in public opinion. Even if a party has all of the federal government under its thumb it still is limited by Constitutional protections and in addition to the horizontal division of power our government has vertical divisions of power (that is the 10th Amendment and other provisions divide power between the federal and state governments). Most states have similar checks and balances and have to have cooperation with local and regional governments on some matters.

This gridlock gets criticized because it makes it hard to get something done by the mere whims of a majority but that is why America has done so well. Radical changes are impossible and our government is more evolutionary than revolutionary. In parliamentary systems a Prime Minister will seldom have any trouble getting whatever he wants through parliament since he has a majority or at least a majority coalition and party discipline is strict because breaking with your party can lead to a disillusion of parliament. In America, members of congress will periodically break with their party and having a majority may procedurally ensure a party can block whatever it doesn't want (for example, the House Rules Committee is always dominated by the majority and can put procedural limits on an unwanted bill to make it impossible to pass), but a majority cannot always get everything it wants.

In my view the lack of 3rd parties is probably a plus since it promotes stability. If we could fix anything about our electoral system, I'd want US House and State Legislative seats to be drawn by independent bodies with strict rules and for term limits to be applied to members of Congress. Gerrymandering means most members of congress are in seats virtually guaranteed to be "safe" and can only be defeated by being primaried by a member of their own party who claims they aren't representing the party accurately enough. It also makes many members of Congress and state legislatures virtually immune to public scrutiny since most of them simply cannot be defeated and it can leave elected officials without clear communities of interest to represent. Term limits would guarantee someone won't be endlessly re-elected simply by virtue of name recognition and will ensure seniority doesn't grant uncompetitive parts of the country such ridiculous amounts of power. We are one of the few countries in the world that uses a winner take all system and still allows for politicians to pick their own voters. Reform is slowly emerging though. Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey and a few other states put independent commissions in charge though many are still prone to partisan agendas. In 2008 California, a state that is perhaps one of the least competitive in the nation due to gerrymandering, saw reform as voters passed an initiative to draw legislative seats with a bi-partisan panel and in 2010 voters expanded that panel's power to drawing US House seats. In Florida in 2010 voters passed initiatives to put strict rules on the way their legislature redraws state legislative and US House seats. While the shape of US House and State Legislative seats may not seem important it is and since this is a year ending in a 1 the states are currently fighting over how to reshape their seats. About the only states that have much hope of reform are states where voters can amend their state constitutions by initiative since legislatures will never accept such a curtailment of their own power but I think things will go better this year than in previous decades since Florida and California, both high population states, will finally draw somewhat fair maps.

Somehow I doubt a differing view held by some on the theory of evolution has all that much economic impact.

Yes, and nobody is suggesting everybody drop out, just those who already have ideas and are participating in this experiment.

I would say quite the opposite. I think colleges these days still focus on electives and simply being present there for 4 years. I would much rather do something productive then sit around gazing at my navel in some stupid philosophy class.

Many of our states have a mix of the two. It has been a disaster for California but here in Colorado it hasn't been all that bad. In about half the states voters can directly enact legislation by initiative and even more local governments have such processes in place.

Here in Colorado about 5% of voters can sign a petition to initiate a law or amend the state constitution. Voters have enacted a balanced budget amendment, a law requiring voter approval for all tax hikes (known as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights or TABOR), term limits, and a whole host of other legislation. Our state legislature is extremely weak but we still have a functional system of government. I would never want initiatives at the national level, but keeping the common man involved in some way or another is a good idea.

The reason businesses both big and small are ever increasingly intertwined with politics is because government is getting ever increasingly bigger. Remarkably little was spent on lobbying when the federal government spent a tiny fraction of the GDP since it was largely irrelevant. Businesses don't have any agenda beyond remaining profitable. There is nothing wrong with the desire for profits, but if we task the federal government with such vast regulatory power don't be surprised when businesses lobby.

The first amendment covers the right to protest and express ideas, not the right to steal classified documents. The Supreme Court has never declared the constitution to be a suicide pact.

There is nothing stopping this right now besides antitrust, but I still don't see it happening.

To a limited extent some of that exist or has.Some web providers used to offer discounted e-mail and browsing only packages (often they had time limits as well). Many ISPs also block ports when a really bad worm or exploit relies on them and few others are using them. Most ISPs will also start blocking certain protocols if they suspect a PC is spreading an infection or spam. Some also allow for "network wide" parental controls for customers that want them. Basically DNS listings are redirected on these to block sites similar to how the host file or a filter can do it locally. Some throttle bittorrent during periods of high demand. I favor this since the alternative is paying more for access so that better connection speeds can be reached or enduring a far slower connection when gaming. I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of these "non-neutral" actions so long as I, the customer, can be made aware of them. I am far more concerned about the prospect of regulation of the internet. The cure seems likely to be far worse than the disease. Anti-trust laws are sufficient to stop anti-competitive practices.

Ritalin is widely available as a generic medication.