I disagree with Sammy’s assessment of the critique of dogmatism. The problem with most dogmatics is their unwillingness to consider counter-arguments. Thus, it is the non-flexible nature of the dogmatic rather than the specific truth they are proclaiming that bothers us. Is my assertion that one needs to consider counter-arguments dogmatic? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. For if you could provide me with a convincing argument otherwise, I would at least consider it.
It seems to me that the current system of voting in the US is broken, or if not broken, it is at least undesirable. No one should ever win an election with less than 50% of the vote. There are many alternative voting systems out there, such as the instant runoff or the Borda count would give significantly more accurate results in terms of representing the actual preferenences of voters.
Unfortunately, vote reform is unlikely to happen any time soon because it would probably benefit democrats more than republicans, since alternative voting systems would allow people to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but still have a preference between the other two candidates if their first choice candidate does not win. Since voters who tend to vote for Green party candidates are often likely to choose a democrat over a republican, a different voting system would give democrats an advantage in close elections.
See this article for more information on alternative voting systems.
Regime change is a fancy of the U.S. government. At this time democracy is not a possibility in Iraq. Any coalition government set up in the aftermath of a war on Iraq will fail due to internal power struggles, and Iraq will have another tyrant for a leader. What Iraq needs is a dictator, just not Sadam Hussein.