GA: Do you honestly think a two party system can adequately represent the interests of such a large, diverse population?
Yes and no. I understand the limitations you see in the system, but as I see it, every politician - regardless of affiliation - serves only themselves. Their political ideaologies, even within the same party, can alter dramatically between individuals. I'm sure we can all agree not all Republicans are like Trent Lott, nor are all Democrats like Joe Lieberman.
Appointer: Our Constitution is based in part on English common law, and the reforms stemming from the Glorious Revolution in England (and the ideas arising from nasty times preceding that), but it was largely considered the great Enlightment experiment since Jefferson et al. were blazing new trails. And they did fail, initially, with the Articles of Confederation.
Keep searching, you're on the right track but not taking it far enough.
As for the Articles of Confederation. . .In the Latin, Confederation literally translates as 'To Come Together In A League.' The Articles were a rough treaty joining independant States together against Britain, it was limited in scope and expected longevity and meant to be so - At least, this is how I understand them. The Constitution was radically different that anything preceeding it because unlike other governmental outlines previous, its goal was not to give power, but to limit the power of each office as much as possible resulting in a governmental gridlock which would - by necessecity - leave the real power in the hands of individuals as the government would be too cumbersome and slow to deal with issues quickly and efficiently.
Carnivore: All of our leaders should be elected by popular vote. Something must be done to limit the ability of corporations to control both politicians and the media. Equal education opportunities must be available to all. I think a few amendments to the Constituton can get the United States back on track.
I agree with you totally, as well as Blanco who saw apathy as the greatest danger to our republic. The cornerstone of our nation is its independant judiciary, and I believe it is just as important that our government officials be independant of economic ties as well. After witness the favouritism shown to Enron - California's Energy Crisis - and Halliburton - Federal/Military Contracts - it is of the utmost importance that we do now allow an elitist and inbred corporate web to ensnare our political system.
In regards to the popular vote, I would support that as well. The Electorial College has shown itself ready to betray the will of the people in favour of supporting the two part system as it stands now. Perot, though gaining 30% of the popular vote at one point, recieved not one Electoral Vote, nor did Nader who recieved roughly 10% (I think, couldn't remember if it was 5 or 15 so I averaged the two
). And yet, when less than half of the total nation turns out to vote, will any candidate truly reflect the will of the people?