This country was founded by the union of 13 colonies. And though these 13 colonies did not agree on all points, they were able to reach an accord, bringing together a diversity of opinions and ideas. Each colony has its own voice - its own opinion.

What do we lose with a two-party system? We lose ideas. We lose freedom of expression. We lose individuality, and return to a system where men are judged not by the strength of their ideas but by how closely they can follow the others in their herd. A two-party system makes a representative body useless if not angering the party is the top concern of legislators. At the end of the day, they must ask themselves who they are really representing.

- janus

I would like to respond to Janus’s post, which seems to call into question the validity of a two party system. It is true that we as Americans at times feel overburdened by the strain of partisanship in a two party system that offers moderates and independents little breathing room. I would like to address these concerns and show why this type of system is best for our nation, and why John McCain will be the best Republican choice, in spite of his moving toward the conservative base.

First, it is necessary to conceptualize the two party system from a distance. Since the founding of this country, the powers that be have warned against falling into this political deadlock. In George Washington’s Farewell Address, published in 1796, he warned against factions and parties, outlining the danger they would cause.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

According to the document, the emergence of factions will lead to eventual injustice and unrepresentative government. And since this time, we have encountered many times when this has seemed to be true. At each of these times, many citizens complain and disseminate concerns that the government has run amok. And for a time, they appear to be correct. There exist periods where it seems as though one party, either Republican or Democrat, has free reign in deciding the course of events. Let us zoom out a bit, however, and reanalyze.

One of the beauties of our Constitutional Government is that it is built to take — and even accomodate – the stresses of a two party system, in the same way a waterfront home on stilts is built to take — and even accomodate — flooding. It is designed that way. Washington’s warning against a factioned system is meant as a protector of the people’s happiness, not of the government’s preservation.

So we have to ask ourselves: does this warning still maintain validity in the context of our matured nation? Partially, yes. As I mentioned, no one is happy when one party has full control; and people bicker and argue when the parties are balanced. However, it is important to look at this in another way. The two party system we have in place is the only protector of the ultimate control over government of the American people.

Consider a system in which no parties existed. Instead of being constrained by conflicting ideological notions, the progression of government would be passive and malleable to the whim of a single popular idea. The people, while the ultimate keepers of the nation’s ideals, are not perfect. Clearly this is shown by the strong opposition that every policy, good or bad, garners from across the aisle when proposed. People do not always agree. And so, it is naive to assume that the popular notion will always serve as a guide to the preservation of happiness and the Union of the states.

To borrow an analogy from Michio Kaku’s 1994 book, “Hyperspace,” when viewing the weather from a two-dimensional standpoint, it makes no sense. Clouds randomly bring rain and wind and snow. The winds flow normally in the same direction, but not always. Sometimes it is cold, and sometimes it is hot. If we view the world as a plane, then weather is a chaotic system of the highest order.

But when we add a dimension and view the world as a sphere, taking into account its positions relative to the sun, and the fact that the world itself is spinning, then the chaotic system is suddenly predictable and its behavior can be logically deduced from the existing conditions, to a certain degree of accuracy.

I propose that when we see partisan politics at work in our government and lament the cooperation absent from our leaders, we are viewing the system in only one dimension. We see conservative and liberal, right and left, along a political spectrum, a line segment. But when we consider the system in two, even three dimensions, we see that we are part of an organic body, the extremes of which are governed by the endpoints of our previous conception of a line segment.

Similar to the manner in which the drafters of the Constitution put in place checks and balances withing the three branches of government, a two party system prevents one prevailing ideology from becoming too prevalent. This is a good thing, considering especially the imperfection of the people.

A two party system, contrary to what we’ve been taught in history classes, is actually a healthy part of our country’s governmental development. When Washington’s Farewell Address was published, the population of the entire nation was under 5 million. That number has grown more than 60-fold in the past two centuries, while the demographic has become far more diverse. The people will not unite in a single direction, and to pretend they will is irresponsible. The most we can hope for is a self correcting system with enough elasticity to pull itself back when one party goes too far. And that’s exactly what we have.

The system works best when the leaders understand the nature of its elasticity and use it to the advantage of the people when necessary, but leave it in equilibrium when possible. That’s why John McCain is the best choice for President from the Republican side. Sure, he is now turning to his base for support. But really, most candidates energize the base first, and then unnaturally move to the middle. McCain’s natural resting point, despite his conservative voting record on most issues, is near the heart and soul of the system when viewed in more than one dimension.

No candidate will ever put a chair in the middle of the aisle, and if one does, then he or she is lying to you. The very health and success of the American political system is derived from the persistence of various ideas, holding each other in check, and allowing for the prosperity of the people over the course of time.

-Prometheus

John McCain will win the Republican nomination. But at what cost? He has been known for decades as a cowboy, following his own beliefs rather than being a servant to his party. But as McCain attempts to placate the conservative base, we come to question how strong his resolve really is. We hear him reverse positions that he once supported, and go silent on issues that he once fought for. Is he willing to sacrifice so much in order to win the presidency? Must we always choose the lesser of two evils? Someday, I want to see a politician take a folding chair and literally sit in the center of the aisle. But for now, choosing a side seems to be the only option left.

- janus

Romney is out. That leaves McCain, Huckabee, and Paul. Now for certain, McCain will win the nomination.

Romney says he is bowing out for party and country, and now the polarized Republican Party will have to come together as the far right is left without a champion. The uneasiness between conservatives and John McCain will become more evident, and McCain will have to reach out to his base.

Romney’s course was a rocky one, and he never quite had the edge that he had hoped for, from Iowa to New Hampshire, and then Florida, he faced an uphill battle the entire time. But by saving face after his losses on Super Tuesday, Romney is setting himself up for future political ventures.

This is a close one. It’s going to be between McCain and Romney, although Huckabee will be a close third. I predict McCain will win in Missouri by a small margin, probably two percentage points. This will bode extremely well for McCain, as Missouri is far from the moderate mid-atlantic states that he will definitely carry tonight.

The exit polls are in and with 2% of precincts reporting, I am projecting Huckabee the winner there, with Romney in a very close second and McCain in a very close third. The news outlets won’t call this one for a while, but as I am not just looking our for my reputation, I am willing to call it.

Obama will carry Delaware. This will win him a few more delegates, but far more importantly than that, it will win him a bit more credibility with moderates, as Delaware is an incredibly moderate state on the grand spectrum.