I'm entirely sick of the way our countries goverment is run. Both local and national. It's a one party system. Whoever wins, wins. And though some of you might think "Well that's fair, the majority voted for the winning candidate," many of you are looking at it from the wrong angle. I'm not suggesting something ridiculous like Facism (my apologies to any Facists reading,) in fact my thoughts are still based in democracy. It's not a new idea, and perhaps I may even seem at times to be rewording the thoughts of others. Fact is, I am very little educated on others views on this and these thoughts base in original ideas.The Problem:You should ask yourself, "Why is a Republican representing the public when 49% of the public wanted a Democrat?" Please bear with me this question is just an example. Does that seem fair to the 49% of the people, who are being ignored? Not really. And that's just with a two party vote. Factor in all of the so-called 'Independant' political parties and it's well over 50% of the people not being fairly represented. Example: a vote wins 40% Dem, 27% Rep, 13% Lib, 11% Green, 9% Other. That leaves 60% of the voters unvoiced in their opinions. How does that seem fair?The Solution:Proportional Representation. Rather than having ONE person representing the public, we have a House. Lets say (for math's sake) the house is made up of 100 seats. In the above Example election this system would result in 40 seats going to Democratic reps, 27 seats to Republican, 13 to Libertarian, 11 to Greens, and 9 to the others. This way the people are fairly represented, and issues that are important to say, the Greens will be brought up, rather than be scouffed at if they were presented to a One Party system. Sure, this way there is still a majority rule... but that seems to work out since that's what the MAJORITY of the public wanted. Not like the other system in which the MAJORITY (60%) we left unrepresented.How would we select WHO gets those seats?By what is called 'Instant Runoff Voting.' Say there are 34 seats to fill, those who wish to fill them would run for candidacy. Let's say there are 45 people running for the 'Republican' seats. After a voter has heard their views, seen their debates, etc. they would fill out a ballot with 45 rows and 5 columns. On each row we have a candidates name. The columns are titled "Choice 1" through "Choice 5," and a voter is to fill in 1 choice per column, sort of like choosing their "Top 5 Candidates." A choice 1 results in 5 points. A choice 2 in 4 points, etc, down to a choice 5 as 1 point. The 34 candidates with the most points earn the seats.Won't this take more time?Let me ask you... Won't our country be run more fair? Won't your views, and the views of your neighbors be better represented?Of course this process will take more time, and more involvment on your part, but since you aren't hearing from just 2 or 3 candidates who happen to have the most money, you have more choice in the matter. In my experience people like to have things customized, from their cars and homes, to their fast food and beverages. Would you shop at a store with just 2 kinds of soda, or a store with 50 kinds of soda? Sure it might take a little longer to walk down the aisle but you will better find the drink you are looking for. Now ask yourself, would you rather live in a country with just 2 political parties, or a country with more?What would this solve?Well, I'm willing to bet voter turnout would show a dramatic increase. If voters feel like they are being heard, they are more likely to show up.It would also let issues that don't seem to be important to big name parties be presented, discussed, and brought to light.It would rise patriotism because the public are getting their problems heard and hopefully dealt with.It would better uphold the ideas of our constitution, and pave a road to the kind of country our forefathers had hoped for.