For one thing, I've seen polls which indicate that more of those voters would have gone for Clinton instead of bush*. For another, I have to once again object to your misuse of the word disenfranchisement. People who vote for the losing candidate are not "disenfranchised". That is just hyperbole. Someone as rational as you claim to be shouldn't try to appeal to emotion using such emotionally-laden verbiage.
As far as your main point here goes, why would I disagree with you? You just made my point for me! Because of the winner takes all method of determining the presidency (the one with a majority of electoral votes) the development of a two party system is inevitable. That's why, in spite of the desires of the framers, a two party system developed shortly after the ratification of the constitution.
The fact that it developed does not preclude the notion that it is detrimental to the system overall, or that it creates a system where special interests can manipulate the party system in a way that effectively destroys it as a platform for expressing the will of the people.
IMO, you couldn't be more wrong.
You claim that your device "performs just as well" as the ones the military uses, but you seem to lack the experience needed to make such an evaluation. Since some aspects of the UAV's the military uses are confidential, it seems you lack the knowledge needed to come to such a conclusion. It sounds to me as if your pride (and pride is an emotion) that has led you to this conclusion. Not that you shouldn't be proud of your efforts, but I just wanted to point out how emotions can lead even the most rational of humans astray
IMO, I have a little more authority on which to base my reasoning than you do. The performance of some UAV's is classified. The performance of other systems is not. I base my assertions on industry research I have performed on systems fielded by the military. My assertion about the comparative performance of my system is based in fact, not wishful thinking. I have one acquaintance who works in the industry, on the projects in question, who flatly stated that with an extra $1,000 in precision instrumentation, my system would perform better than the systems they sell to the military.
Ironically, that company won't offer me a job because I'm graduating with a 2.9 GPA (Mostly because I spent so much homework time doing projects), and their cutoff requirement is 3.0. I'll likely be working for another company instead making navigation and autopilot equipment for manned aircraft.
You also assume that the technical performance (vs price) of a product is the only criteria a purchaser should use in deciding from whom they should purchase a product. This is not true. The military want a dependable source. Being undercapitalized, you are not a dependable source. Someone could sue you for a patent issue and, regardless of the merits of the suit, you could go under because you don't have the cash to defend your claim in court. And then, where would that leave the military?
Naturally you are correct. I am also under-networked. I had planned on spending a few years working in the industry to build up a good network for when I was ready to start. However, because of all the artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace created by bogus legislation, it's all a rather moot point, considering that I'd need to be near Boing or General Dynamics' scale before I could make a decent profit and a stable business venture.
Big, stable companies are important, but when you have to be so big to survive that it negatively effects social mobility in society, something is wrong with the way government is functioning.
It would leave them looking for another supplier, something the military doesn't want to do. They can't go from supplier to supplier, each of whom produce slightly varying products, built from different sets of parts. This would mean training their personnel to fly and maintain a variety of UAV's (and maintain a variety of parts) instead of just one.
Regardless of military or commercial application, I have to deal with FAA regulation. The regulations are the more damaging entity.
And if your design had such a competitive advantage, you should have looked for financing. There are plenty of people willing to finance an endeavor that has the potential for such huge amounts of profits. If your design were so good, you should have had no problem hooking up with people with the money and experience to take your project into the market.
Except for the fact that it's so hard to break into a big industry, that it would be easier for one of the larger companies to just steal my idea, or reverse engineer it and patent it themselves before I could get my idea off the ground.
For all the talk of how regulations are so costly, I have never known of a viable business going under due to regulation, and I've been involved in a great number of business start ups and earned more than I've lost.
Ever start a car company? Aerospace? Agriculture? Manufacturing?
If you've started anything other than service industry companies, you have my respect. If any of the non-service industry companies you started have done anything other than being bought out by GE or some other behemoth the second they started gaining traction, then you're officially a badass.