The last election campaign left me with a new found respect for the Westminterian system. That is the system used in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, among others. Why? 1. Choosing party leaders -- leaders of the various parties are choosen sometimes years before the election, and not in teh context of an election campaign. So there is not the pressure of the US presidential primary system. 2. Sparing leaders -- the leaders of the various political parties stare at each other across the aisle of parliament, sometimes for years. So you have a good idea of where the leaders stand on issues. This is especially the case thanks to "question time" where (at least in the UK) the prime minister is grilled by the members of the opposition. It would be difficult to say come election time you did not know where a party leader stood on an issue, which is a common complaint in the US. 3. Short election time -- the election is called and over in a month. Not as long as our seemingly forever process. This also deemphasizes the importance of money, as there is no way you could spend $200 M in a month. The problem would be that we have a federal system, and the Westminsterian system would seem to keep state politicians out of federal politics. But Australia and Canada are federal systems, and it works for them.