A far more effective way to change the dynamics of Washington would be to address the institutional relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches. Although Mr Greenwald has belatedly note that the Democrats are enablers, he fails to see that it is the ever increasing dominance of the Executive, regardless of party, that has led to this problem.

Greenwald's plan will only have a marginal effect because only a handful of seats are at competitive under the current system. Even if all the "bad' Democrats lose, there'll still be a lot of safe GOP seats whose members prefer sabotage until they regain the White House.

For the long-term solution remembering what Madison said gives security, "a greater variety of parties."The Constitution leaves selecting House Members to the States, but says nothing about districts. change the election system for the House of Representatives to proportional representation. Voters would vote for a party in their state and parties would be sent to Washington in proportion to their percentage. Presidents would be forced to woo the House for support bill by bill - they couldn't simply point fingers at the other party - coalitions would be the rule, as would be transparency.

Either move toward more democracy or stop complaining about "third" parties.

It only took you 10 presidential elections, since U.S. oil peaked in 1971, to field a candidate who began connecting all the dots. You call this "reality-based" politics. Good luck selling that abroad.

The issue is not whether Obama will make a better president than Barr or McKinney, the issue is why Democrats willfully prefer to ignore the fact that a two-party system is inherently co-dependent so that we're forced to wait for a transformational hero.

I take Obama at his word when he says that he will listen to Americans, especially when we disagree with him. But since that hasn't been the policy of his party, will it be the policy of Salon? When the Sierra Club made history by going outside the 2-party system to endorse Jesse Johnson for governor of West Virginia, why did this go unreported in Salon? How destructive does the war against our planet have to get, as evidenced in the utter assault on the Appalachians, before you concede that always voting for Democrats can be downright deadly?

Obama would be an even better president if he was told on Wednesday morning that the Mountain Party had won the governor's race in West Virginia and that Governor-elect Johnson would be a major barrier to Obama's plan for "clean" coal, but that definitely won't happen and your blinkered institutional view is partly responsible.

So enjoy your moment in history. You've earned it. But instead of worrying about Democrats becoming complacent in power, how about proving that Democrats really do believe in democracy? Instead of alternately ignoring, vilifying and lecturing genuine independents, how about condescending to actually listen to us?

Democrats are the only people who found it easy to overlook how Perot helped Clinton slip into the White House. And, instead of responding with efforts to reform the electoral college system state-by-state, they set up the Presidential Debate Commission to keep future Perots out of the debates. Since 70% of Americans want more than 2 choices for President, the Democrats have been suppressing democracy.

However uplifted I feel by Obama's election, I can overlook neither the built-in shortcomings of a two-party system, nor how the Democrats prefer to blame everyone but themselves for what happened in 2000.

I believe in democracy. And, like the above letter writer in Germany, I've lived in countries that have multi-party systems and have seen in countless ways how these are far better at engaging voters and illuminating multiple sides of any issue.

Again, having to wait for an Obama to come along to save us is a reckless way of anticipating and facing up to issues. Insisting that a two-party system is the best we can do does not make it true.

Let's be clear, Obama deserves more of our gratitude for the campaign he has waged than words can readily express. Also, America's first-time voters inspired the world with their judgment that he is the person for our historical moment. Nonetheless, the party that Obama represents is the most visionless, conclave of cowardly hacks that can be conjured up.

I've always felt that the main reason that the Reverend Jackson didn't do better in '84 was that the media insisted on portraying him as the"black" candidate. Last night, it was the very moment when the camera showed his heartfelt response that I teared up. I feel sure that Jackson knows how grateful so many of us are to him and that Obama puts himself at the front of the list. I am just so pleased that Jackson could witness this event. This is the country that we, and the whole world, love.

All we have to do is elect Democrats and they will provide.

Here's a news flash, The New Deal & the Great Society programs were delivered by Democrats from proposals first put forward by "third" parties. You cannot name a "hard" realignment that occurred without pressure from outside parties demanding "change."

The Democrats have a choice: either permanently rupture the GOP coalition by opening our system up with proportional representation and runoff elections, thereby ensuring Dems a generations-long run at the center of the emerging coalitions, OR - more likely - continue to pretend that the two-party system is just fine.

Would the Democrats tolerate any other parties or would America be like it is here in New York - corrupt, one-party rule where lifetime politicos overturn the voters decision on term limits and every mayor is more "indispensable" than the last?

What is the likelihood of Democratic Party journalists ( redundant, I know ), supporting a multi-party polity that succeeded in driving a permanent wedge through the unholy GOP alliance?

Just asking.

Once again, Glenn, you're upset about something inherent in any two-party system.