America has been run by a two party political system for so long that it is hard to imagine a viable alternative. For most elections, it does make sense to choose between two different people rather than several, because it greatly simplifies the process.
If there were two different groups of candidates from which to chose, who had similar and consistent views on issues, then it would be much easier to vote, since one could merely chose the party whose views were the most similar.
In reality, however, the situation is much more complex and results in a number of problems, not the least of which is a deep and growing cynicism about the leaders in Washington.
The basic problem with the two current parties is that they do not have consistent views on both current issues and life in general. The Republicans tend to support a free market economy. From this fact it could be inferred that they also support freedom in general -- taking the stance that since adult people are responsible, the fewer restrictions imposed on them, the better.
Unfortunately, their actual standpoint is to impose social restrictions on in many differing areas of life -- from the movies, which they wish to regulate, blaming them for the apparent increase in violence and out of wedlock pregnancies, to religious issues, where they support prayer in school. In other words, on economic matters the Republicans support freedom and individualism, but on social matters they support government control.
The Democrats are exactly the opposite -- on economic issues they tend to support government control in an effort to protect those people who do not flourish in a laissez-faire economy, but on social issues they support freedom and individual choice, favoring few restrictions on abortions. Yet even in those two areas, the parties are rarely entirely consistent.
For example, the Democrats favor affirmative action, which is designed to alter society by forcing businesses and universities to change their admissions process. Although the two spheres of issues -- economic and social issues, are inextricably intertwined, it would still be helpful to voters if they were able to vote for a party with one consistent message. Instead, they are confronted with two massive parties whose views are often so contradictory that their very existence is puzzling.
Although few politicians are as extreme as Bill Clinton, who supports whatever position seems to be the most popular at any given time, it is impossible to expect anyone, politician or otherwise, to be totally consistent in their outlook on life. This problem (if it even is a problem) is amplified in politics for two main reasons. First of all, current events constantly change the way people look at issues. The recent rampage of school shootings, such as the one in Littleton, Colo., has caused many people who previously frowned upon restrictions on guns to support gun control. People change their mind all the time about things such as whether the United States government should act to prevent atrocities in Bosnia and Indonesia, precisely because those issues are complex.
The second problem is even more fundamental. People run for office because they want power -- not because they ardently support issues. It is inevitable that candidates' positions will change" not just that they have no viewpoint and support whatever is popular, but their actual stance alters. It is as difficult for a leader to make up her mind as it is for the public. Maybe it is a good thing that Clinton is the Waffler.
The inconsistency of the political parties causes apathy. Few Republican voters were able to forgive George Bush when he raised taxes despite his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" slogan. People decide that politicians are just a bunch of buffoons who do not know what is best for "decent Americans."
Furthermore, because the parties' messages can be so inconsistent, some people don't find their views reflected in any of them. The only option they have is not to vote at all. The two-party system is very anti-democratic precisely because some people are incapable of supporting either party, and are therefore unable to have their opinions voiced in an election.
It would be far better if, during elections, people looked only to the character of the individual candidates, and weighed the pros and cons of one individual against another, rather than deciding based upon some arbitrary designation. Since politics is about electing leaders, only those who are best able to lead should be elected. Instead of elections being simply a colossal waste of time, as they are now, perhaps eliminating the parties would lead to more meaningful elections and more resourceful leaders.
