I do not understand why people insist on supporting political parties. I realize that in our system that for the most part only members of the two major parties are likely to win an election, but that isn't an excuse to think that one party is bad and one is good. I personally hate the Democratic party, and I hate the Republican party, Both of them have done their fair share of damage. They both have their own special interest groups that they support, they both run smear campaigns blindly against all members of the opposing party (ex. Republicans are Nazis and Democrats are Socialists), both are very hypocritical, both have gotten involved in things that aren't our business. The party whips ensure that members of the party vote the way the party wants. So basically, don't use your head, don't use your morals, just do what we say. Really choosing between these parties is like asking "would you like to have your hand burned off, or cut apart?". My point is, yes i realize that only those two parties have much chance of having a candidate win an election, but people should realize that both parties are just as bad but in different ways (and some of the same ways in certain cases) so they are basically trading one set of problems for another. Also, people should realize that just because someone is in a certain party, doesn't mean they should be elected. 

I'm not an American, and thus do not follow the minuet details of the two parties, but I've seen both of them make a plethora of inexcusable blunders. I believe the reason that people support these two parties, though, are because of a few factors:

1) It is simpler- A lot of people in the modern world are lazy as far as thought process goes, and the idea of going with one of two sides appeals to this laziness. I always hated this because it implies one side is automatically right in every conceivable way.

2) Power- These two parties controls the majority of the funding in American politics, and people wants to be associated with a supposedly powerful system rather than a seemingly hopeless cause because it has less money. This was always my beef with this type of political system, as the little guys/gals don't stand a chance no matter how good their reform ideas are. Bottom line, since these two parties always had power, they will for a long time. Actually, in Canada, the NDP party only gained its roots due to the great depression (originally called the CCF) and it has only gained the opposition status in the last election.

like warmaker said there are LOADS fo reasons to vote but i understand how some people might not want to, in my opinion its just a redistribution and re allocation of units of money and goods to different places within society for example a shift from education to health or from police to military defense funding. It also affects amount of tax revenue through taxation (ofc) and loads of other factors. People do these for a reason in what they believe will be a better reallocation so i put my trust in all of them (maybe apart from the really insane parties that try to get in the ring with the big boys)

I believe that electing people from only the two major parties is pointless. The point in leading a country should be for the benefit of the country, not to prove which side is better. I believe that the government should do whatever is best for the country, even if it goes against the wishes of the country itself because there is no use in having the ideals without a country to implement them. I think that the style of governing should adjust to cater to the needs of the country itself. If the country can't support it's economy then the government needs to step in and take over business and regulations as much as necessary even if it means controlling the entire economy for a period of time until it is fixed. I think that things can go back to normal once the country is stable, but when it falters the government needs to be an iron back-bone and disregard the criticisms and personal moral issues of the country. I also think it's foolish that a president can only serve for 2 terms. If a president is leading very well, then they should lead as long as they prove affective, and should be replaced immediately upon repeated failures to steer the country in the right direction. I see it this way. We, the people are basically the spoiled children and we don't know what's best for ourselves, while the government is Mommy democrat and Daddy republican. They are very stressed and going through the procedures for a divorce. They always squabble and take sides catering to certain things that the child wants to get the child on his or her side instead of properly raising the child. They should quit their bickering and fuse into one hermaphrodite super-parent, that will do whatever is necessary to discipline the child and make sure that it grows up properly and is always in a stable home with food to eat  rather than dragged between homes and half way houses and the streets. When the child has been good for a period of time, it gets rewarded with some freedoms, but when he gets smart-alecy or bratty and naughty, those freedoms go away. This is just my opinion though and I don't think I have all the answers because if I did, then I would be the president.