You would probably see better representation. Because instead of having on left candidate, one right candidate and a handful of also rans. If everyone was independent in those high poppulation concentrations, it would potentially offer a hardliner and a moderate.
I can appreciate the concept. However, when the party system functions as it should, it defines the philosophies of the diverse parties. Whether a two-, three- or 10-party system, the problem comes when there is a significant disconnect of the controlling faction of the party from the core principals of the party.
Washington himself warned against the two party system in his farewell address.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington's_Farewell_Address#1
22nd paragraph
I simply don't see that. What I see is that an extremism that elevates the party, any party, over the welfare of the country is what he's warning against. In truth, what I see in this is exactly what the more liberal portion of the Democrat party is trying to accomplish in this election. With the rabid hateful speech and contempt exhibited towards George Bush, the Republicans in general and the Christian population at increasing rates is, I fear, the true despotism that Washington is warning of.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
He is speaking of the faction within a party, not of the party itself. That it is 'natural to party dissension' to have these factions, but that the domination of one is to be avoided. The multi-party system itself is healthy, but reliant on the knowledgeable, informed review and control of the greater public participants. We are facing the consequences for an election that has resulted from a shameless populist pandering to an uninformed, ignorant electorate, drunk on the pablum of feeding on the public trough.
The last sentence from Washington should warn the Democrat party what they risk: '...sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction (Obama), more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation,
on the ruins of Public Liberty.'
Considering parties are not called for anywhere in the constitution, and the basic offer of one over the other is going to catch up with us.
You are right. It's not called for in the Constitution. But neither is health care, much less public funded health care. Neither is a myriad of things that are present in our political-social structure, and have been for years, decades. I'm not sure what you mean by "the basic offer of one over the other". The promises made?
If so, we have plenty of guidance, even though we ignore it. One is our founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The second is the financial end: the tipping point between what the government spends of the peoples' monies, and what the people can bear to support.
I've got to tell you, George Washington, as well as the balance of our Founding Fathers have got to be totally spinning in their graves at what is going on.
