The US NEEDS to become a true multiparty democracy.

This comes from a quote from Brent McKenzie's When Separation of Powers becomes a Suggestion in Fulcrum, where he says:

The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty.

Not true since the Founders understood that political factions, which we now call parties, could pose challenges to the system and had significant debates about them. Some saw them as a natural outcome of a free society. George Washington warned against the dangers of political factions in his farewell address, emphasizing their potential to disrupt national unity.  The contentious election of 1800 with its rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans proved him correct.

James Madison emphasized the need for a system that controls the influence of factions on governance  in Federalist No. 10. Madison believed that a large republic would help control the influence of factions, as diverse interests would make it difficult for any single group to dominate. Unfortunately, he didn't see the problem with the current duopoly system which allows for control of the political sphere by a small group.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention political factions, despite the founders dislike for them. It was thought that the effects would be controlled through the system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, those checks and balances are ineffective and quickly eroding until we will see a constitutional show down similar to the English Civil War, where the legislature takes on the Executive branch. Unfortunately, this is something which the US Constitution does not truly address with its system for amending the constitution.

The issues of factionalism, demagoguery, and the balance of power that concerned the founders still plague us today. I would say they are as bad if not worse now than they were at the beginning of this experiment. 

The "Westminster"/Parliamentary system requires that any failure to pass a budget results in new elections. Of Course, it's "Westminster" since Belgium holds the record for the longest time without a government in peacetime, lasting 589 days from April 2010 to December 2011. This period began when Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned, and no new parliamentary majority could be established despite extensive negotiations. And, as of February 2026, Brussels is experiencing another political stalemate, having gone 542 days without an elected government. This ongoing crisis reflects the challenges of forming a coalition in a bilingual political landscape, where parties often struggle to find common ground.

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't apply for Belgian citizenship when I was living there, despite speaking all four languages and feeling an affinity for the place. I mean, the beer is the best.

Anyway, Belgium's political deadlock highlights the importance of strong federalism and regional autonomy, allowing local governments to maintain essential services even without a central government. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for political compromise and the potential risks of deep divisions within a nation, which can prolong governance challenges. 

While running a government like a business is generally a bad idea. Competition in this sphere to prevent monopolisation as well as cooperation between similar factions is helpful in preventing the ownership of the government by powerful factions. It's long past time the people took control of their government.

I can't say "took back control" since the system has never been one where the people are properly represented in the legislature. This has never, and will never, happen under the current system.

Still more Russell Brand on US politics.

 Do this with a "French accent" and it's pretty much what I would say:[1]

"I don't know how people can get so whipped up by either side of the political debate when clearly both sides are engaging in nefarious activity and espionage and it's just accepted as a normal part of political life. For me, it's not about a a personal lack of trust in Hillary Clinton, or the evident dislike many people feel for Hillary Clinton. This is more about a total lack of trust in these political institutions and agencies. And a legitimate reason to feel cynical and sceptical about politics. For me, this is not interesting because he's like "what politicians aren't reliable". This is simply "see, what are you so excited about".

Another thing he mentions is that since both parties are culpable, they really can't criticise the other one. The ability to criticise comes from a true moral superiority because your side isn't engaging in these activities.

Anyway, one of the major problems with the US is that the two parties are pretty much the same: no matter how much you want to believe your side is somehow different. The reason US elections are interminable is that they is big money involved in all this. Foreign elections don't last as long, and have multiple parties, because there isn't the expense which is a major charateristic of US elections.

There is a post brewing on why Bernie Sanders would have been the best choice to have run in 2016, which is pretty much an undeniable fact no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on. The problem is that his popular campaign wasn't given the proper coverage since Hillary Clinton was going to be the nominee in 2016 no matter what.

That was the real reason Trump became president and it had nothing to do with Russian interference.

And in case you needed a laugh:

Footnote:

[1] The "French accent" is more figurative than literal, hence the quotation marks and this explanation.  As P.T. Barnum said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."