I don't care between the two choices myself. It's rally a choice between tow bad options.  I vote for none of the above and stick to it.

I wonder if this election is going to cause changes in the party system in the US. Most countries around the world that have democracy in some form or another have more than 2 parties that are represented in the polls as legitimate parties. I live in Canada and we have anywhere between 3-6 parties in each election that could win seats. It's a different system of electing than the US has but the point is that there aren't just 2 parties to pick from.

I know there are a lot of people I've talked to who have said, "I wish there was another option other than the 2 we have." I know I would feel the same way if I were voting in the US.

There are hundreds of different political parties. The two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, who are more alike that either wish to admit. There are several "third" parties, ony one of which has any seats in the house, and none of which has much of a chance of getting even one more congressional seat. (The one is Socialist Bernie Sanders. )
Of the potential third parties which may occasionally play a role in politics they are, in no particular order, the Libertarians, the Greens, the Peace and Freedom, the Conservatives, the Communists, the Socialists, the Constitutional Party, the Farmer/Laborer party (in Minnesota, they ARE the "Democrats") and the Progressive Party.
Beyond this are many dozens of splinter parties which will rarely work together long enough to mount a credible to any major party candidate.

Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

nextbestthing88 :
Yeh but the laws and voting system are set up in a way that makes it hard for a third party to emerge. It seems ridiculous really. You vote to decide what direaction your country should take. But the two established partys go along practically side by side.
I mean scotland, active partys:
Conservatives, in favour of low taxes and scrapping welfare.
Labour: in favour of more tax for the rich and mainting things like the national health service.
Liberal democrats: in favour of increased socialism, better welfare, free universitys etc.
Scottish nationalist party: independence with a socialist nation.
The green party: slashing emissions, becoming a renewable energy nation.
There may be parties similar in the usa, but they dont get an eye in.
The partys these guys represent differ really on 2 things.
Republicans want to integrate religion with government, and opose things like abortions.
And they take an unusual christian view that they shouldnt help those less fortunate, but leave them on there own with things like medical.
For a 2 party system, you arent changing much come election.
And if obama wins youre going to have a republican congress and a democrat president. That seems pretty flawed.

Elara : I'm disappointed in you.  First, you DID comment on what you thought was trolling by saying you weren't going to comment on it.  Technically a troll would have won that one.  Second, it's not trolling.  I'm making very Jonathan Swift-ian points about my thoughts and beliefs.  Sarcasm is a tool that shows the other point of view.  I wasn't trolling at all.

If everyone prefers the obvious instead, allow me to make salient points.

let's look at California.  Except for the Governator, California has enjoyed Democrats as their governors since 1994.  They've had a strangle hold on state Senate and Congress since '97.  This means no pesky, industrial, rich Republicans have been gumming up the works.

And what do they have?

Their spending for 2012 will be about 92.5 billion, putting California's government spending in the top 10 of countries around the world.  And despite tax hikes, especially towards the richest tax brackets, Jerry Brown's state is still going to be 15 billion or so in the red this year.  So, to ask the usual question us conservatives ask, "Who's gonna pay for it?"  People are leaving California because of the increase in taxes every year.

California has the third highest unemployment rate in the U.S at 10.8%.  Thanks to liberal welfare requirements, a third of the entire nation's welfare recipients live in California.  The state has only 1/8th the nation's population. 

Why?  Dan Walters of the Sacremento Bee said, "Public employee UNIONs wield immense, even hegemonic, influence" over Democratic majorites in the state.  So it is no coincidence the government employees get higher compensation than any other state.  In 2006, the average state employee salary was $60,780, which is 33% higher than the national average.  UNIONs control the state and the government in turn hands out cash to them.

This turns the country into a government-dependent nation.  I want a country where I can freely make economic decisions.  I can vote for who I want, not who the UNION tells me to vote for.  I think corporations are ultimately fine.  The reason you get the internet and this computer you type on and your house and everything you have is because of industrial and technical revolutions brought about from pooling of resources.  That's what big businesses do.  The people who run them can be abusive, yes.

But the people who run UNIONs can do the same, too.  UNIONs and liberals aren't clean and clear of any wrong doing.  Don't kid yourself.

I find it funny how Ron Paul is included in the poll. Haha.

I think I'll say the same thing from the previous election...I don't think either of these candidates are strong candidates and it is just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils, which I have yet to make a decision on.

warmaker : Who said I was talking about your post? I was talking about pretty much every single post in the thread.

Why are you writing UNION in all caps? It isn't an acronym.

I say Romney All the Way I'm a Die Hard Republican!

warmaker :
If the logic of candidate choice is based on party then presidential elections are entirely pointless, and should either be based only on the dominant party or chosen by the representatives that americans actually voted in.
The only logic in a presidential; election is vote based on your opinion of the individual.
Whereas you apparently, are voting based only on the fact that hes a republican.
Given that the financial crisis was caused by poor business trading its ironic that the man who claims he can fix it, Romney, was involved in a financial scandal that led to the loss of jobs for hundreds of people, the stocks held by investors to become worthless, and him walking away with millions of dollars of essentially, stolen money.
Oh, and he avoided paying quite a lot of taxes too, ironic considering he had a go at Obamas supporters for being tax dodgers.
But yeah, its actually the penniless liberals causing all this.
Lets turn on them and allow unregulated businesses to continue unabated, again, i mean, that's only what we've done for the last 50 years and we've only had about 20 recessions.
Seriously, since the start of the 1900's there's been more and more.
The only reason america never collapsed long ago, is the first, and 2nd world wars gave america s economy a boost through war production, sales to other countries, and loans given to crippled country's in the aftermath.
This system has never worked like people blieve it does, if all these countrys stoped killing each other, no one bought the weapons, and poor nations that can never hope to repay there debts, stopped occurring, america would be dead in the water.
Reforms are needed.
perhaps even with your liberal "if you can call them that" policies, work is needed, but dont fool yourself that its on the backs of liberals.
America wasn't very liberal in the 1900's and yet people were starving to death and the unemployment line stretched state wide.
Romney wins, he shifts his attention back to pre-Obama era, 8, 9 years maximum, boom, another recession, bigger and better than the first.
In the UK, banks are going to end up having there street bank sector forcefully split from its high risk ventures, and these are the kinds of things that have to happen.

Definitely Obama. Romney doesn't deserve to be voted for, or to be a president. VIVA OBAMA!!

I just tweeted this minutes ago but I think I'll put it here too:

"I just found the perfect Dickens quote in response to Romney's remarks about that 47%:

'It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God, to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust.'

But even Scrooge believed in workhouses. He was actually nobler than Romney!"

Let me make it clear right now that I am no fan of Obama either. The man is pro-torture and pro-Patriot Act, and even if he were my own brother and had saved my life on seven different occasions I still wouldn't vote for a monster like that. I honestly don't even know what I'm going to do come November. Maybe not vote at all. But I am tired of pretending to myself that I have no affiliation when for a while now I've been slowly realizing that capitalism simply doesn't work (at least in this country and in this age). I'll probably just vote for whoever the socialist candidate is to show my support. It's not like it's an emergency; I doubt very much Romney can win this one.

Voting goes against what I believe in, I'm a follower of anarchy but if I was to vote I would say Obama because I know that he wants to increase taxes and everything but look at the stuff Romney stands for and tell me that man is not insane? Come on now Legit rape? Is this man for real?

XxEzraxX : You know, with anarchy, we'd have no internet, no telephone communications, and only local economies that don't allow for the wide array of goods and services around the world.

There'd be no regulation and no international trade.  There'd be no massive infrastructure to support our way of life.  How on earth can you support Anarchy and what would you expect the world, or your city would like?

No cops.... you'd have communes warring with each other.  That's what I see.

Speaking as a lower-class man, I do not want Romney as president. He said, and I quote;
"I am not concerned about the poor."
Continuing on to say, at a conference that was supposed to be private,
"47% Of Obama followers are freeloaders taking advantage of the government."

I want Ron Paul as president. I agree with all his political views, he was a doctor so he knows about health care, and that's pretty much it.
Obama is my second choice. I don't necessarily agree with all of Obama's plans, but heck I agree more on his plans than any plan Romney has.

I tried to make this sound as professional as can be, without offending any Obama or Romney supporters.

warmaker : For one simple reason, the way we are now is not the way that I believe we were suppose to turn out, I believe that we are suppose to be like animals with our own instincts and as for no Internet and things of that nature, I say good we don't need it. It is not a necessity for survival and I believe that the Internet is part of what corrupts our people anyways. You see chaos and destruction correct? I see no religion, no order, no system of government, no countries and I see nothing to fight over..peace

RalphTheWonderLlama :
Thats the thing about politics. Sometimes you cant find anyone who you really support. At that point voting becomes damage control, vote for the one you opose the least.
XxEzraxX :
I too disagree with anarchy. If it was that or romney id even bite the bullet and vote romney. Structure is needed for stability.
If we didnt need structure we wouldnt have formed it. Look at somalia.
No government. Rape, murder, theft, extremists, its not a life any of them want.
mario166 :
Im sure i saw some stupid stuff about ron paul too, but compared to romney hes albert einstein.