l0ckd0wn, we finally agree on something. cheers!
Cheers to you sir. I half expected you to sign on to what Riser said, but alas you are more logical than I gave you credit for.
And on that note, I pretty much disagree across the board with your broad generalizations on what constitutes a party, Riser.
For instance right now, the biggest divide between the red and blues is ideological, nothing more. This, IMO, highlights the entirety of the dysfunction by having to cling to either one ideology or another while there is a huge gap in the middle ground which could spring forth it's own true centrists and problem solvers, but instead we see our congressmen nitpick and obstruct one another and nothing gets done.
On the basic ideas of capitalism, if you have more competition in the system then those voting will choose candidates that more represent their personal values. As of right now we have the far left and the far right, and as I said, a huge sprawling middle section that is littered with political landmines that act against anyone, from either side, venturing into this much more practical and pragmatic area of decision making and thinking.
If the foundation matches up in a few key areas, you get two parties. For example, you have the Blue Dog Democrats. Fiscally Conservative with Democratic policies. They go both ways and get shunned/blessed by both sides when their political climate fits.
You highlight my point with this last tidbit you said right here. By having more parties, these folks in the middle could be their own individual party without having to subscribe to either side. The problem arises when they tack on more platforming points though. For instance if you are campaigning on the topic of creating jobs/fixing economy/etc. then there should be little talk of abortion or furthering the Christian agendas (Keep in mind I used this as a very broad example to show the gravity of the situation and it's current dysfunction).