www.ditl.org

The problem isn't with the number of parties, but with the election method. The US and UK both use first-past-the-post, while the Italians and Weimar use or used proportional representation. The latter is a lot more likely to let fringe lunatics in.

Seafort has a point: the first past the post system (especially as found in the US) encourages two party dominance. Britain has much smaller constituencies (with about 100 thousand people each), which allows a third party like the Lib Dems to be a bit more competitive, whereas the size of US constituencies (with about 700 thousand per congressional district and 6 million per state) makes it really prohibitive for any candidate to make it without an entrenched party organization. Third parties face huge obstacles trying to get any influence or funding, and when they do start to show a little strength (like when Ralph Nader got 1% of the vote in the 2000 election), they'll often just piss off people on their own side of the spectrum, who view them as a spoiler. Nader, despite holding lots of left wing views, is despised by many many leftists in the US because they think he helped put George Bush in the White House.

So I think, like Rochey suggested, it's often a case of "these guys are the best chance that we have". Like a lot of people, I hold views on health care, gay rights, war policy, drug policy, the death penalty, etc, that are to the left of most of the mainstream national Democrats, but I support them because they're all that we've got. A lot of leftists do feel a crisis of confidence in the Democrats because they perceive them to be a spineless and corporate dominated party.

Funny, I voted Democratic for almost the same reason; my views on gun control, the death penalty, and the military are certainly way further to the right than any democrat, but my views on abortion rights, stem cell research, clean energy, financial and foreign policy are all way left of any republican. My affiliation changes depending on what's going on in the world, and which candidate seems more likely to choose the correct path.

If there were a strong Militant Libertarian Socialist party in this country, that's who I'd vote (and/or run) for, but alas, there isn't, so I make due by choosing who I consider to be the best candidate, regardless of party.

Tsuk sounds like you and I have a lot of the same beliefs.
Personally I think I'm a national socialist but that whole Nazi and Fascist thing puts a bad stigma to that name.

I'll break it down into two categories, left and right, to make it simpler.

Left: I'm pro abortion rights, pro embryonic stem cell research, I advocate advancement of clean energy whether it hurts existing industries or not, I believe we need to work with allied countries whether their goals perfectly match ours or not, and I believe the less fortunate should be helped by the well-to-do whether they can't afford to make their yacht payment and their membership dues at the country club or not.

Right: I'm pro death penalty as long as the facts are nearly irrefutable (three time convicted child molester? The first two may have been a fluke, but three?), pro military (especially special forces and Marines), and as far as gun control... I'd prefer a law requiring everyone over 18 to own at least one gun (which the government would provide), and provide free extensive training in their use and safe handling. Watch random crime disappear.

There really is no party in the US that matches all of my political tenets.

I don't really care so much about party. Just weither I like the person or not.

That's a pretty safe bet, and the main reason why I've never registered to a party, even though I've been politically active since being a teenager (lo, those many years ago.) I have never encountered a platform with which I agree with every one of the planks; but in a US/UK type system - as Seafort mentioned - a voter may have to decide that even though a fringe party represents his interests better, is he willing to subvert that interest for the sake of at least getting something accomplished. In nations with proportional representation, history has seemed to show that instead of encouraging broader discourse it actually stagnates action in favor of debate; and when it does lead to action, it's commonly of the knee-jerk variety (to wit, Israel.)

Tsukiyumi wrote:I'll break it down into two categories, left and right, to make it simpler.

Left: I'm pro abortion rights, pro embryonic stem cell research, I advocate advancement of clean energy whether it hurts existing industries or not, I believe we need to work with allied countries whether their goals perfectly match ours or not, and I believe the less fortunate should be helped by the well-to-do whether they can't afford to make their yacht payment and their membership dues at the country club or not.

Right: I'm pro death penalty as long as the facts are nearly irrefutable (three time convicted child molester? The first two may have been a fluke, but three?), pro military (especially special forces and Marines), and as far as gun control... I'd prefer a law requiring everyone over 18 to own at least one gun (which the government would provide), and provide free extensive training in their use and safe handling. Watch random crime disappear.

There really is no party in the US that matches all of my political tenets.

I have almost all those same beliefs just not the everyone requires to own one gun part. I think guns should be available to everyone but its up to them rather or not to get it.

Yeah, I'm only half-serious about that one. I just like the Swiss idea a lot.

Deepcrush wrote:I don't really care so much about party. Just weither I like the person or not.

I used to be like that. But as a government teacher pointed out that idea is flawed. Think about how many people are placed in positions. When you vote for someone you don't just vote for them you vote for their friends. If its a congress member you vote for the other Congressional members too as the more of them there are the more power they have.

Except for some circumstances, like our town's asshole democratic sherif I would vote based on party politics. While I do love a lot of conservative values as the above post says, democrats don't piss me off as much. Except on the illegal alien thing. I wish that was enforced a lot more.

Monroe wrote:...democrats don't piss me off as much. Except on the illegal alien thing. I wish that was enforced a lot more.

It seems to me that the Dems have a better policy on that; the Republicans like having that sweet cheap labor.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Monroe wrote:...democrats don't piss me off as much. Except on the illegal alien thing. I wish that was enforced a lot more.

It seems to me that the Dems have a better policy on that; the Republicans like having that sweet cheap labor.

Yeah. Republicans though have to be careful not to piss off their base who HATE illegal immigrants. Rich republicans love them but average Republicans hate them.

Monroe wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:I don't really care so much about party. Just weither I like the person or not.

I used to be like that. But as a government teacher pointed out that idea is flawed. Think about how many people are placed in positions. When you vote for someone you don't just vote for them you vote for their friends. If its a congress member you vote for the other Congressional members too as the more of them there are the more power they have.

Except for some circumstances, like our town's asshole democratic sherif I would vote based on party politics. While I do love a lot of conservative values as the above post says, democrats don't piss me off as much. Except on the illegal alien thing. I wish that was enforced a lot more.

Well, its either vote for what you think is the closest to what you want or to what you are looking for. OR, just hang it up and walk just hoping for the best.

Monroe wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:I don't really care so much about party. Just weither I like the person or not.

I used to be like that. But as a government teacher pointed out that idea is flawed. Think about how many people are placed in positions. When you vote for someone you don't just vote for them you vote for their friends. If its a congress member you vote for the other Congressional members too as the more of them there are the more power they have.

Except for some circumstances, like our town's asshole democratic sherif I would vote based on party politics. While I do love a lot of conservative values as the above post says, democrats don't piss me off as much. Except on the illegal alien thing. I wish that was enforced a lot more.

Here's another nit: as the parties vote as blocs to a greater extent, the value in voting for candidates based on "their" positions diminishes. At the same time, the "effective" diversity in opinion in the congress can be diminished as more party members are pressured to act together. To the extent that this is true, it undermines the democratic process.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:Here's another nit: as the parties vote as blocs to a greater extent, the value in voting for candidates based on "their" positions diminishes. At the same time, the "effective" diversity in opinion in the congress can be diminished as more party members are pressured to act together. To the extent that this is true, it undermines the democratic process.

Of course, in multi party systems, there tends to be a lot more party discipline - the Republicans have done a good job recently of producing some "0" votes for Obama's initiatives, but generally the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have much greater freedom to vote their own preferences / interests without reprisals than an MP in Europe.