" it is quite difficult to get a one party majority i.e. over 50% of the vote"

Yeah but thats the point, right? It forces compromise via coalition if you want anything done. Thats a lot harder to achieve with only two parties.

Hmmmm... So if we make certain positions be by party (i.e. the house) and then if a party gets 5% of the vote, they get 5% of the seats... Of course, that total alters our view of representative government and has the issues pointed out of districts having a real representative that cares about them specifically regardless of party, but gives the people who feel unrepresented because of their specific view not aligning with the big two a form of representation. Woudl that just replace one disenfranchisement with another?

"Yeah but thats the point, right? It forces compromise via coalition if you want anything done. Thats a lot harder to achieve with only two parties."
I personally believe that compromise isn't good...

Historically speaking, economic growth in the US has coincided with political deadlock. Either the recovery starting after the republicans started filibustering in congress this time, or the long economic growth in the 90s.

Meanwhile government expansion under eiter one or both paries, has generally resulted in negative consequences down the road, Iraq, Afghanistan, Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, Obamacare (many companies have already openly declared that they will delay hiring more workers and cut the weekly hours of current employers to avoid the costs added by Obamacare, so while Obamacare hasn't been implimented yet, I strongly believe it is going to slow growth) etc.