ubernoir wrote:
i think you need to take onboard a wider perspective than simply the party politics of the US. I believe party politics is an essential part of democracy across the world and the formation of two blocks which are themselves coalitions inevitable both in the first past the post system and in proportional representation systems.

It's worth discussing, I think, why a two party system is inevitable. Is it the simplistic reason, that the social evolution of humanity has given us an ingrained tribe mentality? That the average person cannot conceive of himself except as part of an in-group that is largely itself defined by it's distinction from some other group?

There is simplicity in aligning yourself with a group... but it's this very simplicity -- which breeds simplicity of thought -- that fosters one of a few key issues on which Decius and I agree quite thoroughly. Of course, a good coalition represents the finest result of a series of countless arguments, negotiations and compromises. This is good... without compromise, nothing gets accomplished. Nonetheless, I don't see that a party is required in order to give structure to the compromises I personally address.

Rather, I still analyze each candidate by comparing their positions on various matters to my feelings about them. To be sure, in this country, at this time, the probability that the results of that activity will be a republican are quite small. That's not because I can't bear the thought of a republican, but because we're simply not likely to agree.

The party itself has essentially no bearing on that.

RE: Against Independent Voters - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog