Would you prefer, if available, an alternative to being a Republican or Democrat in the U.S.?

The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is like the difference between white and brown chicken s__t. It may look different, but it’s still chicken s__t, and it still smells the same. Good for tomatoes, though.

I considered myself a Republican for many years, and then Bush took office and quickly changed how I felt about the modern GOP. Many of my views would be considered conservative (I favor limited government, low taxes, etc). But, I also favor views which could be considered liberal. I voted for Obama last November, which was the first time I ever voted for a Democrat.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the 2 party system changing anytime soon in this country, so people with diverse views like myself will always have to compromise some of our beliefs and choose the person who most closely resembles our views.

I would love a viable alternative.
The lines between the two parties right now are too fuzzy for my taste.

I, too, would love a viable alternative.

However, in a winner-take-all system (as is required by the Constitution), a set of two different parties (other than the Demmicans and the Republicrats) will look very similar. One will be the favorite of the more liberal-leaning folks, and the other will be the favorite of the conservative-leaning folks. Once the dust settles, I fail to see how this would be different from the current system, save for a name change.

The two parties do not represent Americans well, but it will be very hard to change. It would require amending the Constitution to do away with the “winner take all” system. And Congress is filled with Democrats and Republicans, in whose interest it is to maintain the status quo. So while it doesn’t represent everyone in America, it ends up having much the same effect as coalitions in multi-party nations: people have to compromise and work together under one of the banners of the Big Two, instead of parties working together to get that 50%+1 we need now to get things done.

Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin. We need a new coin to take us in a new direction.

@laureth, I agree. People who idealize third-parties don’t seem to grasp that, if a third party ever hopes to govern the country, it is going to have to form the same kind of broad political coalitions that the Democratic and Republican parties currently consist of.

People also forget that the two parties are fluid things that evolve pretty rapidly. Republicans used to be the anti-slavery party, and as recently as the 1960’s were getting most of the black vote. Then the Democrats started championing civil rights as part of the platform, and in response, the Republicans adopted the “southern strategy” to appeal to white, racist “Dixiecrats,” peeling them off from the Democrats to form their current coalition.

If you want to change America’s political system, you can change the parties from within. Whining about how “they’re all bad” and pining for some nonexistent third party savior just strikes me as political and moral laziness.

I’ve been registered as Independent for years. I prefer that neither party simply assume I will vote for their candidate, even though I still end up voting for one of the big two. If enough people did this, it would force them to become more centrist and govern the country from the middle.

I’m not entirely convinced that that is the right way to govern either, but this schizophrenic swing from left to right only damages our reputation globally.

I don’t think we’ll see a viable third party any time soon. If we did, they’d have to have sold out to a lot of people, just like the other two parties.

Neither the far right wing nor the far left wing has a chance of winning national elections any time soon. Right now, the tendency in this country is to go toward the left because of the botch that Bush made of everything. Eventually, things will swing more to the right to even things out. The fact is that most Americans are centrists.

Yes. Only having one more party than the communists have is not sufficient enough for me.

There are two parties, because, as @Qingu said, a party likes power, and the best way to power is to get 51% of the votes. If there are multiple parties, they will always combine so they can get that majority.

That is also why they seem very similar. They try to make their rhetoric achieve the goal of attracting all their solid supporters, and enough of those in the middle that they get a majority. To appeal to the middle, you have to sound an awful lot like the other party.

Of course, don’t be fooled by what they say. They are actually very different. Bush got in power by getting enough of the middle, and he turned out to be the most conservative (and disastrous) President this country has ever had.

Obama may have sounded like he came from the center, but he is hard at work dismantling the disastrous Bush legacy. Who wins make an enormous difference. I didn’t used to believe this, but now I have seen what damage one person can do, and I will fight hard, the rest of my life, to prevent such conservatieve ideologues from ever gaining power again.

Now days you are either voting for a Demican or a Repulicrat. Kennedy, today would be considered conservative. I believe the choice has evolved this way, on purpose, to control we the sheeple. Know we are having European Socialistic dogma shoved down our throats-hope you enjoy the Obasim, I voted for neither.

@daloon Nothing about Bush’s policies was conservative, except, possibly the fact that he didn’t raise taxes considerably. In regards to his spending, foreign policy and varius executive powers, he was anything but conservative.

@Garebo – and in some ways, during Bush II’s reign, Reagan looked like a bleeding-heart Liberal.

@Poser – Exactly!

Bush may have spent a lot, but it was on the war, and on military support, and farm supports, and all kinds of things only conservatives support. He totally ignored cities and health care, and anything that actually would have made people’s lives’ better. He was all about making money for his friends in business.

@Poser, what mythical Republican president was “conservative” by your definition? Saint Reagan deficit-spent and had a largely identical foreign policy as Bush.

Is it possible that when you say “conservative,” you actually mean “libertarian”?

“Conservative” doesn’t have to mean only “financially conservative.” There’s also “socially conservative,” which Republican politicians seem to have in spades (at least most of them, and outside of airport restrooms).