Yes, apologies - my several prime ministers ago aside was very much a tongue in cheek utterance. I'm painfully aware that Scott was the one to reset that record

Yes, apologies - my several prime ministers ago aside was very much a tongue in cheek utterance. I'm painfully aware that Scott was the one to reset that record. As to 'Only the US has two realistic options' - you appear to be switching in 'realistic', and overloading 'options', when comparing other countries. I'd contend, f.e. that even with 33% of people not voting for the Labor or Lib/Nat coalition in Australia, we're still in the regrettable situation of only have 'two realistic options'. In the sense of 'who'll be head of state' (or PM in Canada, AU, UK, etc) it's well understood going into an election who the two candidates for that job are, and undeniably that has an influence on voters in electorates where that person isn't running (ie. almost all voters). I know nothing about Canadian politics, but was living in London in 2010 - pop media were struggling to understand & describe how a coalition could even work. Anyway, that went as well as we expected, and my point is mostly that there was only two potentials before, and zero doubt after the election, about who the prime minister would be. You observe that other parties present candidates and win seats in the UK and Canada (and presumably everywhere except the USA?) - which is true, but misses my point. Consider, if an independent in the US won a seat, could that conceivably change the selection of president? Aside - a model I'd love to see employed more widely is a Swiss-style Federal Council.