It's all good. You can be the mastermind if you want.

Oops sorry, I misunderstood the box, I did not mean to steal your name 8p...

I could not put any better, but I can add something just in case...

A thing that I think often goes most overlooked is the importance of money. Whoever has the most money wins, is the way it really boils down, and how to do that I wonder? Talk to the guys that have a lot of it. And how to do that? Do whatever they tell you to do, and once you are in, do not even think about stepping out because, well look what happened to Mr. Kennedy.

Some have proposed that all money to candidates should be public and in equal amounts, and private funding illegal. I could see that developing its own problems, but it would probably still be better than ever candidate who actually wants chance getting bought off and talking their way into the office.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost” - John Quincy Adams

@anonymous adult: Are you for freedom or tyranny? A vote for the democrat or the republican seem like votes for tyranny rather than freedom.

@anonymous adult: Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Like I said above, the point of the comic is not necessarily to push the 3rd party vote, although it does somewhat. The main point is to examine some reasons as to why people vote a certain way.

There are many people who feel that they are well represented by either of the two big parties, but there are also people, such as myself, that do not.

To address your bicycle analogy, I think what you might have been hinting at is that a political system requires a balance of two opposing sides to keep it moving forward (left pedal=democrat, right pedal=republican). Ideally you might be right. What if both parties are pushing on the same pedal only claiming to be on opposing sides. (For example: both McCain and Obama were for the bailout. Where's the "conservative" position in that? Both voted for funding the war in Iraq, and both voted for Fisa and the Patriot Act. So where are the opposing sides when it comes to these issues? That's why I think it is important to have an option to look elsewhere for a candidate that supports my beliefs. If neither the dem. or repub. would vote against the bailout, who would? Oh yeah, the 3rd party candidate. To me, it's more about the individual rather than their party affiliation.

Although history has shown that societies generally gravitate towards a two-party system, I think mainly for simplicity and practicality, I do believe that we should strive for a better system that includes multiple parties.

No, I don't feel like I am smarter than everyone, but like you, I have a different perspective.

You asked, "What would a third party believe that doesn't already fit the liberal/conservative category?" Well, that's tough to answer since you already made it clear that you only see two political ideologies. In my opinion, the question should be about whether a candidate has the integrity to act in accordance with their philosophy, even if that means it will hurt them politically. Do they have integrity or will they claim to be a liberal and vote like a conservative or vice versa?

I expect a system where each individual will vote for the candidate that best represents them. The more choices the better. If we need to stick to the K.I.S.S. model of Dem. vs. Repub., Liberal vs. Conservative, then we need to continue assuming that people aren't willing to raise the bar, consider more than just two parties, and instead continue what we've been doing throughout history.

Keep in mind that in your response to this, you can either agree fully or disagree fully... Oh wait, I just remembered, there's a third option where you agree with some and disagree with some.

I would appreciate your response. Thank you for posting.

When I was young, I used to be a massive advocate of "breaking free" of the two-party arrangement we've got in this country.

Then I realized...it's not some sinister, conspiratorial motive that drives the dominance of the Democrats and Republicans over all alternatives.

The reason that there are two damn political parties in the U.S.A is similar to the reason that there are two pedals on a bicycle: people have only two feet and people have only two basic political ideologies (liberal and conservative).

That's technically four, if you want to count the social axis and the governmental/economy axis. But since the parties have aligned themselves along both those parts of the spectrum (as a couple of general examples, most Democrats favor government regulation of industry AND abortion rights, while Republicans favor small government and christian 'values').

So, to burst your little I'm-ever-so-much-smarter-than-these-sheep fantasy bubble, I ask: what the hell would a third party really believe that doesn't already fit as either a liberal or conservative mode of thought?

If you can't answer whether you, personally, lean towards liberalism or conservatism, you don't have any business voting.

If you CAN answer? Well then you're in luck because there's a party for each political pole already. Democrats on the left, Republicans on the right.

Haha, nice! Too many voters think it's a popularity contest.

Check this out....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S34W-rg8jHY

hanging zionist traitors is not anti-semitec

gah