Do you think that a permanent Republican majority would be a good thing for America?

You seem to be defending the idea, but you're unwilling to take a stand and actually say so. To give you the maximum benefit of the doubt, I'll interpret that, for partial credit, as at least reflecting an understanding that support for permanent Republican rule is profoundly un-American. At this point asking was more a formality, and if you decline to be put on the spot, no problem, I got my answer anyway.

Canada? Nice comeback! On the surface that almost works, until I tried to research the question and was reminded that Canada is a chaotic parliamentary system, and the definition of "in power" is fundamentally different. Canada's Liberal Party is a minority party and always has been, but under Canadian rules the Queen's Governer automatically chooses the Prime Minister from whichever party holds the largest minority. Nobody in Canada gets to hold the whip-hand.

That's the basic reason I sometimes wonder whether we'd be better off with a parliamentary system too. It fragments power even better than our system, and doesn't suffer from the instability of a two-party system in which the tiniest of electoral margins hands huge power to the winner. But our two-party structure has other benefits to commend it, like the phenomenon I've written about lately of a tripartite electorate in which the moderate middle occupies a fulcrum of power. Our system, when it isn't being undermined by demagogues, seems designed to reliably produce moderation, and that's what we so desperately need these days.