One of the factors that propagates our two party system is our election system, not electoral college, but rather the plurality/first past the post voting.
It allows the participation of people like Nader in 2000 and Perot in 1992 to draw votes away from the candidates who have a realistic chance of winning.
The primary system of the two main parties forces polarizations among the two leading candidates, which they have to carry into the final round.
We the people are left with a crazy right and a crazy left candidate with nothing in a reasonable middle position that has a chance. If you have a preference of one of these over the other you must vote it or run the risk of your third party vote counting against you a la Gore Florida 2000, or Bush Texas 1992.
Better would be some kind of ranked voting or even approval.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Single-winner_methods
I'm thinking that there are two ways we think about the word hero, and that is part of the cause of disagreement.
First we think about it in the sense of heroism, whcih usually implies bravery in the face of adversity. That seems to be the way Eliezer was using it.
However, it can also mean a champion (of a cause for example). For example, Superman did not put himself in any danger by standing in front of a bullet, but he was taking up a noble cause, doing it for a higher purpose. After all, he could have been sitting at home in the hot tub with Lois drinking a purple kryptonite cocktail...
Any update?