In truth as a Centrist myself it is odd to see the Republican party go through the same conflicting goals as the Democratic party has suffered for decades now. It is absolutely true that the success of the Republican party centers around it's ability to rally around a single candidate and rally around a single set of ideals and goals. However this has left the party weak when it realizes that not all Republicans are behind the GOP. In fact the GOP has taken such a huge step to the right that even long standing members of the Republican party are holding up their hands and asking the powers in the party to take a second look at what they are doing. The push towards a more faithful following of the original and perhaps pure intentions of the Republican party of old is being done by Governor Christine Todd Whitman and a hand full of others in the It's My Party Too campaign. They have realized that the GOP is no longer looking after the best interests of the party as a whole and instead of catering to a select few and the most radical of the party. This might be akin to the Democratic party being run by the Green Party or a few of the most liberal or left of the party. It is the Centrists of the Republicans and Democrats and to so extent the Libertarians who more now than ever demonstrate the will of the majority of America. However we are stuck in the ideology that a two party system still works which is our first downfall. This country was not formed on simply two parties but the collection of many parties all with different outlooks of the future. Instead of pigeon holing ourselves into choosing the lesser of two evils we should instead push towards a broader contest. When we have more than two parties then we will have a better sampling of the population. I would want to see honestly four parties at minimum campaigning for the Presidency. It would then be less about, "My platform is different than the other platform and so it's better.", and more about, "This is my platform and it is in my opinion what is best for the country.". Suddenly citizens can vote not because of blind loyalty, not because of us versus them, but because they actually believe in something again.

It is time to look outside the box and outside the two party system. Both parties have made a mockery of the system and are nothing but mirror images of themselves and yet at times carbon copies of each other. I am tired of Red and Blue. I want yellow, orange, purple and green in the mix. Give me more choices and let someone else have a chance. It's time for a change.

I'm actually waxing nostalgic to the days of gridlock. It sure as hell beats rapid movement in an obviously bad direction. The worst thing that ever happened to the GOP was Bush 43 and Tom DeLay.

It is amazing to me how simply splintered the republican party has become, they've seriously begun looking just like democrats. From the border issue, to the iraq war, the politicians are all bowing to their corporate gods and are really breaking from what the American people want.

The only real way to change the face of politics in America is frankly illegal to discuss, but we all know the truth. It's pretty sad that the people of America are too lazy to do anything of substance about it.

Every time I look at the parties I am reminded of a line from Red vs. Blue. "Red and Blue are the same!" uttered by one of the characters (I do not remember which one.) We spend our days debating socialized medicine, abortion, the War, racism, and whether Barry Bonds took 'roids, while those in office piss away our money and our lives. Being Human I am not sure any compromise we make for civilization and safety is going to be perfect, but I also think we have turned over control of everything from our political parties to the nation in general to anti-intellectuals who have no intention of permanently solving any real problems. As for the GOP specifically, I think if they refocused on the smaller entrepreneur and on a more diversified attitude towards religion, that it would be a step in the right direction.

(Left) A ---- B ----- C ---- D (Right)

This is my example on my opinion of multiparty system. In a four party system as seen above you will most likely have that sort of separation. Two parties more towards the middle while two more parties taking up the extremes. Evangelicals, NRA and Militias will most likely be in the D party. Centrist types in the C party, Libertarians in the B party and ultra Liberals in the A party.

In Congress if for some reason all four parties hold power then you will have certain issues that take the cooperation of multiple parties to pass. For example there will be bills that will probably be favorable for both the B and C parties but are either too liberal for the D party or too conservative for the A party. However if the majority of B and C parties vote for it, then it will pass. Perhaps there is a bill that D party brings to the floor that needs the help of the C party to pass it through. So after a bit of negotiation across the floor, C and D agree to a compromise and vote on a bill.

So in a sense you have a similar method in passing bills as you do now however with more opinions and issues of importance. Hence there will be more negotiation and through that hopefully better bills and resolutions passed. I believe it may take a little longer than it does now but I don't believe it will take so long that it's not bearable. I see no issues with a multi-party system in the US larger than two. It seems to work just fine in the UK.

From many years of experience of living in different European countries with both bipartisan and multi-party systems, I can reassure you that gridlock actually tends to happen less in multi-party systems than bipartisan systems.

There is a certain tit-for-tat mentality implied in gridlocking: if you do it to us, we'll do it to you. If you do that consistently in a multi-party system, you'll never get anything done. This in turn will put voters off at the next elections, and, given that this is now an option, result in votes migrating from the centre to the extreme right or left. Which the centre wants to avoid, so it tends to play nice.

So you end up with coalitions programs, horsetrading and tacit voting agreements instead. It's all fairly lacklustre and big changes in policy as seen in bipartisan systems are rare, but it generally is stable.

Gridlock is a wonderful, magical thing. Gridlock is the best result of a two-party system. I don't want them working together over there. The longer they stay with their horns locked, the less damage they can do.

I think that's your answer, Baggz.

The problem is that there are centrist and extreme camps in both, and given the low voter turnouts, it's easier to win by getting your extremists ("the base") to turn out and vote than it is to convince the centrists to choose you. If we could raise turnout amongst the centrists (like me), then we'd have less problems with extremists getting elected -- especially if they get lucky enough to escape the gridlock.

The more parties there are the more parties towards the middle you will have. Like my diagram above in my previous post and like wordsmythe said the more parties you have in the middle the less likely you will have an extremist nut elected into office. Hence less swinging left to right constantly. I do not discriminate I hate Evangelicals and Green Peace equally.

Isn't the exact opposite true? The more parties we have, particularly in the middle, the more fractured the vote will become and the more likely a 15% "majority" on one of the wings will win.

If there has ever been an election when a 3rd party candidate can really have a shot, this seems to be the one. So many of us are so disenfranchised with both parties that many Americans would at least give a legit 3rd party guy/gal serious consideration. Ironically, as polarized as we are right now, the candidates have never looked more similar, to me anyway.

The topic that started this was what impact W has on the GOP and as one of the people the GOP takes for granted (conservative Christian), I would gladly vote for a 3rd party/Democrat if one was available and did so in the 2006 elections. I look at the GOP now with much disdain and cringe at the thought of voting for one of them, but look at the Democrats and feel the same way. The primaries will long be decided before I get to take part, but it really doesn't matter anyway.

It's amazing how much we get stereotyped as Christians and as conservatives (well, I'm conservative in a pretty antiquaited sense). Plenty of Christians still think there are values to small government and fiscal responsibility, the same as there are values to prudence and caution and not committing human rights violations to untried prisoners.

The real question for the disenfranchised is whether we should abandon this redefined GOP, and if so, if we should vote Dem or for a third party.

I happen to be one of those small-government wonks. I go to church and am a christian, too. I don't think the gvernment should ahve anything to do with what is and isn't a "marriage." Marriage is a religious term by its nature, so it should be in the law at all.

I'm leaning toward Ron Paul or Obama, depending on how much coffee I've had. This was the point I wanted to make about the "christian" stereotype.

I resist the whole "small government/big government" debate because I think it's really the wrong way of thinking of things. There are functions in a modern society that require big government (e.g.: the CDC, Interstate commerce, national defense, monetary policy) and attempts to privatize them have been pretty disasterous (e.g.: the explosion of contracting fraud in Iraq). There are other functions that are better handled at a local level.

The problem with simplistic mantras like "big government bad" is that blunt instruments like that don't really do any constructive work. All they do is give people with narrow political agendas (like lining their pockets at the expense of taxpayers) convenient tools with which to manipulate voters.

As voters, we should be concentrating on competent governance, not sloganeering. And it is painfully clear that we have had none of the former and lots of the latter.

Again people are straightjacketed by this two-party mentality. "Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos."

A "third party" has no chance, because even conscientious, thoughtful votes are drowned in the ballots of the morlocks who get all their political info from the tee-vee.

And by and large, they are when the electorate isn't manipulated by simpleminded mantra politics like "small government" libertarian nonsense. It is notable that the government that was swept in on that particular ticket managed to pork-barrell its way into the biggest deficits we have seen in American history.