No Hasbeen. I do not "hate progress". I would consider that my views are more progressive than 90% of the commentators on this site.

As for the NZ government being "dysfunctional" are we talking about the same country? NZ has had a modified pr system several elections, all of which resulted in stable governments. The fact that coaliitons were needed to obtain a parliamentary majority reinforces the point that it was democracy at work. At the last election (2011) the public had a referendum on whether or not to retain the pr system or opt for something different. A solid majority voted to retain the system as it was.

Either the majority of the NZ public are deluded (I know that is a default Australian position) or they think it works pretty well.

I spent a fair part of my working life in Scandanavia, all of whose countries have a pr system. Check out any of the standard tables published on living standards, health care, democracy, etc etc and the Scandavian countries regularly feature in the top five. Is it a coinhcidence, or is it that having a political system that actually takes account of a wide range of opinion and works towards a consensus on how best to achieve a good result is actually better than the appalling rubbish infliced on the Australian public?

"No system will result in all good chief executives, but I think the US has done pretty well"

I don't know davidf, as far as democratic capitalism goes, in comparison to say Sweden, or even Australia, the US is more dysfunctional, with it's dreadfully low minimum wage and drastic inequalities, I don't think we want to go down that path.

The US has had its inspirational leaders but they were of a different age and the current system doesn't seem capable of producing their like again.

Obama no doubt has it in him but the machine undermines his reforms.

I think it will take a committed political party these days, rather than a charismatic.

I definitely believe our preferential voting system is more fair, transparent and comprehensible than the US system,which appears to be mysterious even to the majority of US citizens.
I would however like to see an extra square added to the ballot paper as a permanent option:
"Tick here if you believe none of the candidates are worth feeding, much less voting for."
This is in fact the strongest argument for pref. voting; for the open minded voter, it's almost always about which candidate we dislike least, rather than the one we like most.
Historically, although the size of the disparity is troubling, I don't think it's quite the end of civilization as we know it. I seem to recall as a child the prevailing wisdom was that if one party held the federal parliament, the other party should rule the (NSW, at least) state.
What is most troubling is that we are offered so little choice in basic ideologies.

Dear sillysally,

I agree that the Scandinavian systems produce fairer outcomes than the US. However, I believe that is not due to the Scandinavian political systems but to an accident of history. Dissenting Protestant religious sects emigrated to the US from England. They created a superheated atmosphere where government tried to regulate morality in such disastrous experiments as Prohibition.The foreign policy is affected by the Christian Zionists who oppose any peace in the Middle East which might interfere with their visions of armageddon. They oppose social programs to relieve suffering as that is interfering with the work of God.

Scandinavia has treated religion much more sensibly. I think that is the explanation for the Scandinavian well being not the difference in political systems.

Dear Grim,

The US voting system varies from state to state. Nevadan ballots have 'none of the above' as an option. If that gets a majority or plurality (I forget which) the parties must designate new candidates.

davidf writes

'They created a superheated atmosphere where government tried to regulate morality in such disastrous experiments as Prohibition '

and now our liberal thinkers have allowed child molestors a field day by feeding them porn, sexualised young children, encouraging a free flow of destructive drugs, increased alcololism among teens, increased suicide rates etc etc congratulations davidf.

Maybe our first people would not be in half the mess they are in if those insisting on prohibition were listened to. Then again why deny the pleasure of a few no matter how perverted if it destroys many (at least that's what the liberal thinkers think).