the two-party system produces stable governments, rather than stable democracy, and the latter is what should be desired.

two-party systems are not intrinsically any more stable, citing such examples of stable democracies as Germany, which has a multi-party system through proportional representation.

I disagree that coalition is highly unlikely. As long as a given party controls the executive branch and has a solid majority in both houses of Congress, they essentially have achieved coalition.

This weak argument can be further taken to say facism/dictatorships are even more stable, and thus, everyone should be ruled by one man, for coalitions sake. This is a ridiculous argument. The more people discussing points the better. It may take longer, but agreements reached will have greter support, unlike the "democratic" US, who would go against the majority, and applaud others for going aginst the majority of their peoples. Example, Turkey, who was criticised for following the democratic beliefs of its people, inn not helping the US illegally invade a country. At the same time, the US applauded people who joined them despite democratic agreement of less than 10% The US and its two party system care nothing about democracy or fairness, but in its unilateral self-serving hegemon.