Why is a political party then a failing attempt to categorize people by their general beliefs/opinions of how the government should be run? Half the time in America, you cannot get anything done with the government because all you hear is "democrats, this" and "republicans, that." Let's face it: do you honestly think America is better off with political parties? Of the many people I have asked, the majority of them believe that all of their beliefs on how the governments should be run does not all fit into one party. It's either "you close-minded liberal" or "you redneck conservative."

The sad thing is, to make it on the ballot in many places, you either have to be democrat or republican so you won't get laughed off of it.

What is your opinion?

__________________

We are united in our basic ideology. The difference stem from the minutia of that basic ideology.

Yes.

Political parties allow for compromise. Political parties encourage moderation.

No, but most of their beliefs do.

And there is nothing stopping them from forming their own party, so it is irrelevant either way.

Most people more or less fit in those ideologies. That is why they are dominant.

The reason you get laughed off is because most people agree with the Republicans and Democrats.

But my ballot had about a dozen parties on it...only two of tehm were Republican or Democrat. And there was a space for write-ins as well.

The fact that the majority does not agree with you doesnt mean you dont have a choice. You dont always get your way in a democracy.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Sorry. I don't buy that Republocrats represent the majority. We should bring in run-off voting and put that to the test.
Third parties don't get their messages out to as large of numbers and are never able to get in fast enough to weigh the issues. Rationalization also comes in when you consider all the people who vote for Republocrats because they realize the alternates have no chance, so they pick lesser of two evils. There is also a strong argument to suggest that many who don't vote see no major difference in the two parties.
Now granted, the third parties might not be valid alternatives. But either way, even if the Republocrats' mixed views are dominant, most people are a mix of the two. Otherwise we would not see the numbers moving in votes from year to year that are seen. The issues viewed as important change. The perceived solution to problems changes. This changes people's ranking of issues and causes them to switch back and forth between parties, usually accepting things they disagree with as part of the package.
Otherwise the votes would be the same every year.
Parties do have the side effect of creating opinions for those who join them and creating some really dumb divisions and occasional futile moronic battles over which side of the bread to butter.
However they also act as vehicles of coalition to connect similarly thinking people. It isn't necessarily that parties should be destroyed, just the way we slavishly cling to them.
But let's face it. As one who considers myself liberal, I am almost always going to vote for Crats over Pubs all things held constant. There is a certain amount of consistency. My anti-war, pro-liberty, caring for the poor sense will always outweigh my anti-fed, capitalist, pro-life sensibilities due to my stubborness on those issues. However if an independent came along to put it all together, he/she would get my vote.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Fact: Most people don't vote in most elections. In some, next to none vote. I think it's a bit of a logical stretch to claim they don't vote because they LIKE the Republicrats. Kind of a tough sell.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Sorry, the majority dont seem to want runoff voting.

Not that I would care either way personally. But the only time people seem to demand runoff voting is when their candidate doesnt win...

No one is forcing them to compromise.

That is a perfect example. You are choosing to compromise. No one is forcing you to.

I am an idealist...I dont compromise. If a candidate came along that represented my views more closely than the Republicans currently do, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. I turned on the Democrats, and I would turn on the Republicans just as easily. The only question is what party most closely represents my ideology.

And right now that is the Republicans in General, and Bush in particular.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

We have changed a lot as a country, and it would make sense for our govt to change with us. I would personally like to see a more proportional system implemented here in the US. That would probably phase out the republican vs democrat sports game type mentality. Or at least weaken it.

__________________
Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly, Man got to sit and wonder 'Why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land, Man got to tell himself he understand.
~Bokonon

You're right.
No one forces me to compromise.
But that does not mean I agree with the Crats. In 2000, I actually liked Nader better and voted for Gore anyway. Why? Nader didn't have a shot. At the time I did indeed prefer Nader. It is accurate to say that I rationally compromised based on my calculations of probability and because my voting was negative (as most American voting is, even though we hate it- we hate negative ads but they've proven very effective). But it is not accurate to say that I agreed with Gore. It is more accurate to say that I disagreed with Bush.
The question is whether most people vote like I did or whether people actually prefer the views of the two big parties or whether partisanship is mostly psycho-emotional (which recent psychological studies support). I suppose this is a leap of faith. We can use whichever studies we choose to prove whichever. But niether of our beliefs is rightfully the default.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

If it's of any consolation, I voted the same way as you the past 2 pres elections. I didn't vote for who best represented my beliefs, but rather voted against the candidate that most opposed my beliefs. It's the evil of the 2 party system.

__________________
Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly, Man got to sit and wonder 'Why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land, Man got to tell himself he understand.
~Bokonon

most of the time.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I am sure you would. Good luck selling it to the majority.

I like things the way they are now.

You agreed with them enough to vote for them. If you choose to compromise, thats not the system's fault. The fact that you chose to compromise does not mean you dont have choices.

Not enough to vote for him.

You must have agreed with him on some issues.

You had choices. You chose not to use them. That is not the system's fault, and it is not the fault of the Republicans or Democrats.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?