In history, you can find many examples of the two-party political system ripping its society apart.  It can divide a nation in half and pit brother against brother.  Sometimes, it can even lead to bloodshed through civil war."

Yes true, but  a multi party system is far worse than a two party system, I know because I live in Canada which has five major parties.  In fact multi-party system is far worse than a two party system, by share percent its is just more likely that you have a separatist party.  Think about it, if there are only two parties who both oppose seperation, then separatist are out of business. In  a multi party system, well, let me tell you we have the Bloc Quebecois, who represent 1/6 of the country in  parliament, who want to completely seperate Quebec completely from Canada.  This has costed the rest of Canada an outrageous amounts of money, why, because one small party has essentially managaed to coerce the federal government into giving it money or threaten to seperate.  The Bloc just want money to give to Quebecers so it seems relevent because it is basically legally impossible for Quebec to seperate according to the Supreme Court of Canada.  What this means though that no matter what provincial premier is in power, they wave the threat of seperation in the face of the federal government and they always bow down.  What I am getting at here is the more parties you allow the more likely it is that someone will set up a seperatist party even if only one in 15 people support such a party they can get ridiculous amounts of money from that other 14/15 people providd that elections are close (which they are).

"The Roman republic experienced this with their two political parties, the Popularites and the Optimates.  It ultimately led a bloody conflict which forever ended the Republic.  Gaius Julius Caesar was a man of the people and a member of the Popularites (equivalent to America's Democrats).  Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus, or better known as simply Pompey the Great, was a member of the Optimates (equivalent to America's Republicans).  Julius Caesar too advantage of this deep-seeded division and finally led his armies against Pompey and the Republic.  Caesar won the war and the republic turned to a dictatorship.

The American republic also had a civil war in the 19th century.  The two opposing political factions, the Democrats of the southern states and the Republicans of the Northern states, found themselves at war.  It ripped the nation apart and many lives were lost in blood conflict."

While this is all true ask yourself, had the roman republic allowed more parties would this increase or decrease the likely hood that more separatist party will form.  Look at Yugoslavia, communism ended, one nation seperated because  multiparty elections were allowed, until every ethnic group formed its own country.  These people who lived and worked as brothers and sisters for years turned on each other like vicious dogs once multi parties were allowed, why, because multi parties just divide people and split diff. ethnic group.  You must ask, would allowing more parties stop the south from trying to leave?  No, if anything it would do the opposite, it would be more likely that someone would form such a party provided they were from the south.

"Now it is the early 21st century in the United States and the foundation is being laid for, yet, another civil conflict.  Tensions are high with the 2008 elections around the corner.  Racial, economical, religious, and an onslaught of other issues divide the nation like never before.  All citizens hold some or all of these dividing beliefs.  Individual politicians, military soldiers, police, and the civilian populace are all susceptible to acting upon their most cherished beliefs.  If the conditions are right, the United States could be one incident away from another civil war.  It could be a collapse in the economy, or an offensive political assassination that sparks the riots in the streets, which could spread into the ranks of the military and police.  The powder keg is full and it could explode at anytime."

See I disagree greatly, in a two party system any one group who is p.oed can just switch parties and have a lot of influence.  For example, the african americans were a base of the republicans, no republican could win w/o having the african american vote, this is precisely why a republican like dwight eisenhower in the 1950s integerated washington schools.  However the fact that only years later the african americans vote promise to the democrats of jfk and lydon johnson, who were known for being pro racist, allowed aa to get far more influence than they every would have in a multi party system which would have encouraged the african americans to start there own seperatist party.  That is what a multi party system says, if i disagree with you, go to hell im starting my own party.

"I'm not sure if the United States can avoid the inevitable, but it can certainly delay it.  Americans must learn to coexist with one another and to protect the civil liberties which are important.  Freedom is the only thing that can preserve the peace, but if one political party gains enough strength to take away the freedoms cherished by the other party then the nation will be one step closer to civil war.

Americans should be cautious towards Barack Hussein Obama and his obscure and ambiguous plans for "change".  Let’s see to it that America never falls into a state of civil war again.  Let’s preserve the union for peace sake.  Let’s be polite and respectful towards our brothers of the opposite political party.  Let’s have peace."

Yes clearly Obama the war monger wants to starts ww3 and civil war, lol.  He is the first democrat in a long time to reach out to republicans.  I fear John McCain because he was tourtured for years, and has alot of rage built up on the inside, he also held back civil rights, and opposed martin luther king day, despite the fact the man is a national hero and icon.  It is not even a partisian thing, if you were tortured, it would extremely hard not to hate, and I as a conservative know that conservatives are not the forgiving type, thats why we hang people who commit murder.

Look here in Canada, liberals make up 80% of the country random parties 4% and conservatives 16%.  So how can we have a conservative party in power?  Well lets see, there is only one conservative party, and there are the liberals, new democrats, green party, and the bloc quebecois (all would be considered far left wing in the states like vermont or something).  Basically all these party have the same platform, the bloc no longer is trying to seperate from canada, just shake down the feds for money.  In fact the green party and the liberal party are so close in platform that they parties dont run candidates in each others ridings and the ndp and conservativs threatened to not go to a debate if the greens were allowed.  What I am getting at here is this there are something like 20% of people are really swing voters, and the conservatives will never form a majority government unless they become more liberal 20+16=36% = minority government.  What this means is that although 64% of people are hardcore liberals, they cannot even form a government half the time because they are so dividied.  So you tell me whats better having a government, with all its imperfections, that represents the will of the people, or having a multiparty system which makes it impossible for the most popular party to win? When you have 3 liberal parties running under 4 different names it is impossible to win.  It is no accident Canada has had mostly liberal prime ministers prior to the unite the right movement that united the more than 3 different conservative parties in canada all of which represented something like 10% each.  Think of it this way, island X has 30 conservativesand 60 liberals who run under three parties and 10 swing voters. Each liberal party represents no more than 20 people.  You see dispite the facts of being grossly outnumbered the liberals have an uphill battle and those 10 swing voters are going to get the best deal every time followed by the winning party.  Worst of all it will mean that as few as 5 people can control the entire island, just like real politiks