Anyone watching Obama trying to get anything past Congress, with a majority in the same party, can see how limited is his power. Indeed, we would be better off with more than two major parties. Nowadays, a third-party candidate would likely split off voters from one of the major parties, thus dooming them both. If the "Tea Party" selects candidates other than those chosen by the GOP, we'll likely keep a Democratic majority for another four-years.

In San Francisco, our ballots allow us each to name our first, second, and third choices for each elected local office (though it is not often that we have three or more candidates - occasionally someone runs unopposed).

One of the major problems with our system has to do with the cost of running for office. Our city is only 49 square miles, with a population of around 700,000. Yet to get elected Mayor will cost you close to a million dollars for advertising, campaign offices, etc. Campaign Finance Reform has been discussed for years, but no one has come up with a good plan. Recently our Supreme Court ruled that corporations, with multi-national shareholders, can spend unlimited funds on political causes. If Congress doesn't soon do something to limit corporate involvement in elections, the voters will demand reform. We are tired of having our votes and our interests outweighed by monetary influence.

Pres. Clinton arranged a loan to Mexico that netted $600 million for the US. Then Mr. Bush put us in debt to Mexico. I think Obama can turn things around if he can get some support, or at least less resistance, from Congress.