Oh, I know; I attended my share, though back then I like to think I didn't participate in the shouting as often. Maybe I just had the good fortune to arrive after the worst had subsided, but while it did happen, MOST trolls USUALLY seemed to be dismissively ignored. The vitriol dripping insults were something you skimmed past on your way to worthwhile discussions, and the latter predominated even though the former made their inevitable appearance in threads on anything remotely controversial.

That carries its own set of difficulties, most notably divorcing representatives from any sub-national core constituency they REPRESENT. Pork is a very real abuse in need of reform, but a lot of very beneficial programs wouldn't exist without the votes of Congressmen who knew the vast majority of people who voted for them would benefit. I've heard it alleged, for example, the entire state of TX only has one natural lake; we have many artificial ones thinks to WPA hydroelectric programs supported by TX Congressman like Lyndon Johnson. Maybe LBJ is a good New Dealer soldier without that, but it certainly didn't hurt, and I can't help wondering how much of the New Deal would've become reality if individual Congressmen weren't offered individual programs they knew would help hundreds of thousands back home. Not to mention the time honored US principle of "writing your Congressman" goes out the window if he's not really YOUR Congressman.

I say all of that because the chief alternative to FPtP seems to be proportional representation, and while it has a lot of things going for it, it has some very real deficiencies that aren't present in our system. There are pros and cons to both the American and European models, and I can't say either is "better" but I do think both could benefit from borrowing from each other (instant runoffs would vastly and immediately improve our system, IMHO, allowing viable third parties without wasted votes. )

Obama was an unknown quantity and that was part of his appeal, but that means die hard liberals who voted for liberal rhetoric couldn't be certain they weren't getting a pragmatic moderate. What happened to Obama, IMHO, is that campaigning as an outside the Beltway politician didn't stop him being a politician. That said, I think Rahm and Axelrod are giving him horrible advice, because the best course for campaigning is seldom the best course for governing. The proof is in the pudding, but this increasingly tastes rather sour.

As to Congress, a lot of those incentives are there for reasons of accountability and representation. It's a national legislature composed of local representatives; the need for an elected official to represent the country is why we have a President, but the need for national interests not to trample local ones is why we have a Congress. With a few exceptions were wise and well educated men, and tampering with their handiwork is something I think should be carefully considered, deliberately evaluated and (usually) still not done.