Surely there are people who are socially lib but economically con and vice versa. How can 2 parties be enough?

Question

Independents do not really have any serious chance in our system.

Answer 1

That's life.

Answer 2

You have a good question here. Let me hit it from the flank: In countries where they have a multitude of parties there has to be a "coalition" before anything gets done. If no coalition can be formed, they essentially don't have a govt. Take Belgium as a current example. They haven't had a govt. for about 18 months - just a lot of people running around shouting at each other (and collecting a paycheck). The reason for this is that pols tend to be more loyal to their parties than to their principals (if they have any). Having a party for every conceivable combination of viewpoints pretty well precludes any meaningful chance of compromise, which is what keeps things going. The political dynamic here is that "parties" are more insular in their positions on issues than individuals. Besides, do you really want to go into the voting booth and try to sort out your choices of candidates from 10 plus rows of parties? Hope this helps. Have a nice day!!

Answer 3

Of course there are liberals who are poor--and a few cons who are well-to-do.

But they are a minority. If some of them are interested in forming their own political party, that's their business. Its a free country.

Answer 4

I consider myself socially liberal and economically conservative. That is why I liked Bill Clinton. But since there are no politicians who are economically conservative now, I have to choose politicians based on their social opinions.

Answer 5

"Vote for a third party? Haha, go ahead. Throw your vote away!"

--President Kang
(The Simpsons)

Answer 6

You're right John and it's up to We the people to change that

Answer 7

sounds like you may want to advocate for IRV...

Answer 8

It is called compromise.