M. Marliere is so unfamiliar with this idea because Europe consists of parliamentary governments, often with proportional voting, where coalitions are formed once the government is created, rather than before. If he wanted to debate the merits of a congressional vs parliamentary system we could.

To me, the largest problem with the American system is the difficulty in getting on a third party or independent ballot line. Many people complain about the prospect that superdelegates will select the nominee, or are aghast at the idea that conventions are sometimes brokered. But essentially the party has the right to choose its own nominee; and originally there was no federally instituted primary system, just intra-party caucuses.

The problem is not that parties can choose their own nominee, but that, because its so hard to run for office outside of the two parties, the whole processes has essentially become controlled by power players. Whether that be the party committees, or the bi-partisan commentators in the media who dictate the narrative of the election.

If one could bypass the two-party process more easily, conservatives who were upset enough with McCain could mount a challenge, without worrying that they would be spoiling votes, killing their political careers, or spending millions of dollars on party building and ballot access.

I'm not necessarily saying if that were the system, conservatives should do that, and one can expect that in some elections, some third parties would throw their weight behind one of the major party candidates—because they wouldn't fear losing their ballot access in doing so, like they currently face (if a third party decides to support a Republican or Democrat one election say goodbye to changes of staying on the ballot). But the possibility of doing that would restore the plurality in debate Marliere complains is missing.

When people criticize the American political system, whether Americans or outsiders, they always miss the real problem. Part of that is because people are so involved in defending either Democrats over Republicans or Republicans over Democrats, that they don't