In general, Putin, I tend to agree -- you want political parties that represent major political ideologies, so that competing ideologies can put forth candidates for political office which can compromise on their parties' behalf and come to conclusions which satisfy the people.

Problem is that the current parties don't really do a great job of this. After all, as you noted yourself, you consider the Democratic Party weak, ineffectual and altogether too moderate for your own tastes. You might support Democrats over Republicans, being that they're closer to your own interests, but ultimately you're not happy with your choice. Libertarians get a similar shaft, although thankfully (for us) we've been able to mobilize far more effectively the past few years and get enough support to begin to effect Republican policy in a meaningful way.

The way things are, the two-party system isn't working: it's representing one specific ideology, the centrist left, pretty well with the Democratic Party, and it's adequately, but not satisfactorily, representing a political alliance of the secular authoritarian right and the religious right. Libertarians, communists, and previously progressives were left out in the cold, and while the Democratic Party is taking a decidedly progressive bend it's not really there yet, so even they're kinda left out too. I'd think you need more parties for the party system to work; two ain't doin' the job.

"Politics IS a self-interested affair...so sayeth Machiavelli, and Hobbes, and even Locke says we join a state because of our self-interest."

And it's in one's self interest to sometimes sacrifice one's pride in order for one's political coalition to prevail. Even Machiavelli recognized that the prince couldn't ignore the mood of the people and do whatever the hell he wanted.

"You're the equivalent of a 49ers fan who roots for the Seahawks against them if you don't like the play of the current QB."

1. Really? You're bringing football into this? Well, I can see you want a clean, intellectual discourse, not a juvenile flame war at all...

2. Football is for FUN...not that important...if it made me happy to root for another team, really, would that matter?

3. Your football/political party analogy is not only stupid, but sickening--the Founders didn't want Parties BECAUSE of this sort of football, root-only-for-your-team mentality...in other worse--because of people like YOU.

4. I'd NEVER root for the Seahawks--how dare you! ;)

"You might support Democrats over Republicans, being that they're closer to your own interests, but ultimately you're not happy with your choice. Libertarians get a similar shaft"

"I'd think you need more parties for the party system to work; two ain't doin' the job."

You're still going to have to have coalitions with the larger parties even if you have a multi-party system. It's not as if libertarians or communists are going to single handedly have a majority to impose their will if we suddenly became a multi-party state. The communists would have to work with Democrats (if the latter allowed it, the German SPD doesn't work with Die Linke, so it's not inevitable) and libertarians would likely have to work with the religious right to get their way. Fragmenting the polity into more pieces only makes it harder to construct a governable coalition as you have more leaders and more egos involved.

Oh:

5. WAY to confuse your "vote for the greatest good" point with your "vote for your team/party!" mentality...

Can you screw up any more? No, please, really, go ahead, Putin...you're just making a fool of yourself...

"Your football/political party analogy is not only stupid, but sickening--the Founders didn't want Parties BECAUSE of this sort of football, root-only-for-your-team mentality...in other worse--because of people like YOU."

How long did that last? They quickly realized that you can't impose your will as an individual, and you need to work with like-minded people to get stuff done. Jeffersonian clubs arose within a decade of the illegal Constitution being ratified.

Well yes, you'll have coalitions, but that's the whole point, isn't it? You *want* the different ideologies to come together and compromise. Yes, it does make constructing a governable coalition more difficult, but I see this as being ultimately a good thing, given the reason why that is: it's because you actually have to represent more than just 2-3 ideologies. Leaders and egos would make the process more difficult, sure, and this is a downside that has to be acknowledged, but as one of the groups that's been essentially disenfranchised because my ideology was not represented by more than like 2 people in Congress for the longest time, I'd say bring on the additional egos if it means we actually get a significant voice.

^True, but again...

There's a difference between coalitions and compromise...

And the football team mentality we have today:

GOP members won't work or vote with DEM voters or Congressman, and vice versa, JUST to spite the other "team"...

Congress tried to "run out the clock" on Bush, and they're doing the same thing now that they're GOP-controlled with Obama...

But sitting on the ball doesn't work for a NATION.

It can for a football game, but not a nation.

That seems like it only strengthens the argument for more parties. If the two teams are happy to watch the world burn so long as it's on the clock of the other team's presidency, the only solution that is guaranteed not to work is to keep the two teams in power. Bring in other parties who don't have the vitriolic past, and everyone benefits: the new parties can come in and gain prestige as negotiators to break the deadlock, and the existing parties can not only work with these new parties, but maybe even get past their differences with one another and actually work together on something good for a change.

"Bring in other parties who don't have the vitriolic past,"

Yes, and at that point, it becomes more of a compromise between a no-party and two-party system...

MANY parties is a better answer.

Unfortunately, as long as we have those like Putin who will only ever go Blue and never, ever even think outside the box to vote for other candidates who might fit his views or be good for the nation...

"Well yes, you'll have coalitions, but that's the whole point, isn't it? You *want* the different ideologies to come together and compromise. Yes, it does make constructing a governable coalition more difficult, but I see this as being ultimately a good thing"

Just want to point out that Belgium has gone for nearly a year without a governing coalition. If the parties cannot compromise now, they're not going to when you add a couple ideologically hardline groups to the mix. You can't tell me that a party led by Ron Paul would make the prospects of compromise easier.

Eh, I actually think that a strong enough libertarian segment led by Ron Paul would force compromise. Imagine, say, a voting bloc in line with the Cato Institute's numbers cited before, 10-20% (we'll say 15%). Give your communists about 10%, split the 30% of Republicans left between secular authoritarians and religious authoritarians (gonna guesstimate a 12/18 split), rest is Democrats.

That's 45% Democrats, 10% communists, 15% libertarians, 12% secular authoritarians and 18% religious right. You'd probably see the 30% of establishment right Republicans cooperating, so there's a 45-30 split with our 25% deciding the majority, super majorities, etc.

Would compromise be easier? No, not necessarily, in fact it would almost necessarily be more difficult owing to the increased number of ideologies represented. But again, that's good. You and I, and people of our political alignments, get to be the kingmakers. That forces the establishment to compromise with us. This can only be a good thing in my eyes.

Situations like Belgium are bad, yes, but also few and far between. In fact I think citing Belgium as an example of why not to have multiple parties is equivalent to me using the hypothetical example of one religious evangelical party controlling everything as an example of why fewer parties are bad. More realistically I'm imagining something like what my friend (German major, visited Germany twice, going a third time and follows German news daily) describes German politics as: some 4-6 ideologies, each represented by a political establishment of their design, jockeying to shape the country's policy. I think their deadlock is actually much better than ours...

Anyway, just my thoughts on how to fix the 2-party debacle we have now.