The problem with the US system isn't that it's a "two party" system, it's the fact that the winner takes all. People vote in gerrymandered blocs called "districts" here, which are drawn up by the majority party in the legislature in most states, blatantly to advantage their side and deny all representation to the opposing party, after the census is counted and Congressional votes redistributed. Arizona has thankfully begun the process of reforming districting to eliminate gerrymandering and hopefully more states will follow suit.

When someone gets past the posts first, all other votes are simply thrown away. Oklahoma is one of the most Republican states in the US, but still has a Democratic population of 40%. Yet, it has 100% Republican representation in Congress and its 7 electoral votes have a 100% chance of going to Donald Trump. 40% of Oklahoma voters are effectively disenfranchised. The same situation exists in Oklahoma's Democratic counterpart, Massachusetts, with regards to Republicans living there.

That said, there is one advantage to the US system: it keeps fringe parties like the Communists and the American Nazi Party out of the government.  They can try infiltrating the Democrats and the Republicans, but that's also extremely difficult.

I voted for the cunt. I'd rather vote for a cunt than a douchebag.

I mentioned that a president does have veto powers on most of the legislation, that is unless a supermajority agree.   As you probably know, most laws require many amendments/"pork bellies" added to them to meet all of the special interests needs.  That is the unfortunate system flaw that we have.  

The Presidents influence is very minimal in the last 20 years or so.  There are few laws that get all of a particular party to even vote for them.  If a sitting black president can make no headway on things to the point that a new movement was started since he became president(Black Lives Matter) to change laws to protect black people from the system, there is no further proof needed.  It has to be the right leader that inspires people and other leaders to make change happen.  It doesn't come from a political party, it comes from an inspirational leader that people can believe in.  Obama has proved that even with a democratic majority(his first term) and ideals that fit his party and the medias agenda, making change isn't easy.  He just isn't inspirational enough to get people behind him and move the needle.

So, the president as a person is most important, the party is always second.  There is a reason they call it Commander in Chief.

I think if it is so easily possible to split the supreme court by party lines something is very wrong with the justice system.

Gerrymandering and filibustering are just more inherently undemocratic atrocities that need to be abolished.

I'd argue almost the opposite thanks to the past few Presidents.  Remember Bush's signing statement when passing the torture bill (which I believe was vetoed and then sent back to him after 2/3 vote).  He signed the torture bill with a signing statement stating basically he doesn't have to follow the law.  That he is above the law.

"This was not the first such statement to come from the White House. When Congress passed a bill outlawing torture of detainees last year, President Bush quietly released a signing statement in which he affirmed his right to bypass the law if he felt it jeopardized national security"

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/27/bush_signs_statements_to_bypass_torture

You then have the increased use of executive actions that Bush did a decent amount of and Obama has done more in wake of a Congress that is stalemated. 

I disagree. A person's temperament, disposition, integrity and ideology are profoundly important when choosing a leader. Trump of course fails miserably in every category to a greater extent than any of his opponents could ever dream of matching.

Democrats don't have left wing policies...

I find that hilarious given how awful Hillary is in drumming war up against the Russians as of late. Not even Trump is doing that.

agree

Na F that! I vote for the best in office, especially for international affairs, it just happens to be Hillary this time instead of the "Blow top" one.