Two parties, too many problems

While it's important to identify with a group of people who share your political opinions, the idea of the political party has gone too far. Party membership should characterize political leanings, not define them. That we have only two major political parties reveals something is amiss. The further popularization of the Green and Libertarian parties would help things, but still leave something fundamental out (if the idea of only two political parties is absurd, then the idea of four is objectionable). \nWith the wealth of social problems out there and the multitude of ways of dealing with them, there are far more than two political ideologies, and far more than two should be represented. Deadlocked in bipartisanship, much of the public is excluded from expressing itself politically, especially through legislative representation. Even more destructive, though, is the suppression of political opinions -- probably whole ideologies, by a system that precludes any attempt to popularize a third, or forth or fifth perspective. The public cannot consider a political philosophy to which it has no exposure whatsoever.\nSome would argue this is the natural order of things. If there are only two popular political parties, then the public only wants two popular political parties. I doubt, though, that every registered Democrat or Republican would be a registered Democrat or Republican if the system effectively encouraged otherwise. Entities such as the bipartisan machine have too much social inertia to change on their own; they must be re-engineered through social reform. There are some pitfalls, though (e.g., the tendency for two similar parties to merge into one in the face of mutual opposition). Hopefully, though, some framework can be developed so that dangers such as this are avoided, while political choice is emphasized. \nThe problems with bipartisanism manifest themselves in the two-party political debate. \nOften, only the two most popular parties participate in debates, excluding other parties that cannot gain popularity without the public exposure that televised debates provide. Political debates themselves are usually paper-thin. Candidates churn out glittering generalities ("I'm for homeland security"), and when they are not demanding apologies from one another for what one said about the other's patriotism, they give only the most cursory, shallow treatments of the issues. They seldom discuss the implementation of their proposals, and they never discuss why their perspective on an issue is the right one. Until they are more provocative, televised political debates will do little more than nod the heads of party-line voters.\nCherry Blattert was right in her Oct. 8 column "Educate students first." Voting is both a right and a privilege. In order for the system to work, the people must not only exercise their right to vote, but exercise it prudently. Voting is more than going to the polls, and a corvette or a million dollar prize would undermine the democratic process. But political expression is about choice, and until the system is reworked so that choice and discussion are emphasized, something will be missing.