I agree, Douglas. It's called "the voters." As little as any of us cares for the prospect of more frequent elections, letting the clowns hang on to their jobs for fixed two-to-six year terms isn't getting the job done. We need a Westminster democracy (what is inaccurately called a "parliamentary democracy:" because the best-known example of is happens to be called "Parliament.") in which elections can be called as often as the legislature loses the confidence of the people (in what is, logically, called a "vote of no confidence"), and the leader of the government - the chief executive - is appointed by the ruling party or parties. (At present there is no single ruling party in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, for example - Labour lost the confidence of the voters, no single party mustered enough votes to rule on its own, so a coalition government under the Tory David Cameron consisting of the Conservative Party and a few others runs the country).
The reason this would be better is that there is less security for the ruling party or coalition, and its appointed head of government. Moreover, consensus among parties is encouraged - in Great Britain, it was necessary during the last election. Also, it was possible during the last British election for a number of parties to take power away from the single party (Labour) which had the most votes, because it didn't have a MAJORITY of votes among those voting. This fixes the worst defect of the US two-party, electoral college system - that a party with clever political technicians can game the Electoral College and win a Presidential election here despite losing the popular vote. And if you don't think that's possible, it's happened in the recent past.
There are more than one computer software companies like Aristotle Philips' aptly named "Gerrymander Software" which specialize in programs for political party strategists to use in getting pliant Federal judges and state legislative committees to design Congressional districts that can be won by a given political party or member of a given demographic group; the same sort of software allows party strategists to concentrate on winning the "right" states to get their candidate elected in the Electoral College regardless of how many people actually vote for their man.
An electoral college map (http://www.270towin.com/) shows how this works in practice. While the most recent poll cited by CBS shows Obama leading by less than the margin of error of the poll (3%), current state-by-state polls show Obama leading Romney by 237 electors to 191 electors at present. The Democratic Party is calculated by the software in this particular Electoral College map as having a 98 percent probability of getting all the electors it needs to put Barack Obama back in the White House, based again on state-by-state poll results.
Republicans shouldn't despair yet, however. Poll results are famously misleading in US Presidential races. While the President enjoys a popular vote lead at present, Jimmy Carter out-polled Ronald Reagan all the way to November 1980. And since Obama has managed to polarize the electorate while failing to maintain the lead in voter registration in his stronghold states, cities and districts, we could be looking at an election in November (the only Presidential poll that really counts) in which more Republicans than Democrats make sure they're registered to vote and actually show up on the day TO vote. Apathy among the same people who gave Obama his 2008 landslide is high.
So, for THIS election, it all depends on how well Romney communicates and how well the voters calculate. So far, Romney hasn't been stellar in talking to the voters, playing into Obama's hands with that disparaging remark about the "47%" of the voters who don't actually pay Federal income taxes. But it's entirely possible that - not at all counting on those people to be self-honest about what they GET from their neighbors while not GIVING anything they don't absolutely have to in order to drive their cars, purchase gasoline, or use any of the other government services paid for by user fees - a slow but building anger on the part of the 53% of the population which DOES kick money into the kitty will help Romney in November. That particular remark isn't one I wouldn't have made, because it's not calculated to increase Romney's likeability. It all depends on how many of us are tired of likable Presidents who still can't run the country.