I used to be until I realised just how much a part of the political culture it is in the USA. What amazes me more is that in a nation that considers itself so democratic, most people think that having only two choices is enough choice.

That's because they are brain washed into a paradox of unequivocal ultimateness of decision. It's only black or white with no shades of gray fro these people.

I don't find it amazing, more like sad. I wish we would go back to the "old ways" of just electing the best man and not the whole party. The guy with the most votes would become president and the guy with the next most votes V.P. and so on.

I never understood that mentality myself. Vote for the issues, not just the party.

That's why I advocate that all political parties be outlawed.

Not amazing in the least when you understand how politics and political parties work, and that you're NOT voting for the candidate as an individual, but as another tool of the machine. Ever hear of "The 11th Commandment" in politics? What amazes me is that so many people could be so naive as to think that a party nominee will be anything but partisan in his politics -- except in those few issues that would absolutely cost him his re-election. Former Speaker Sam Irwin used to tell his 1st term Democratic congressmen, "This term, vote however you have to, and do whatever you have to get re-elected. NEXT term, I expect your vote... and if you ever vote with the opposition thereafter, you will never hold office again." Even in the sham GOP, the "Mavericks" really just represent the Rockefeller wing of the party, and are used as a convenient whipping boy by the party bigwigs, to keep the real conservatives in GOP base blaming the so-called Mavericks for doing just what the party brass privately/clandestinely support but won't admit to their constituents. Even elected Dog-Catchers are partisan and have political influence in and around their districts. The more people of one party there are in office, the more influence that party wields, and the greater its power over the appointment and hiring of non-elected government officials and civil servants -- who, once in, are much harder to get rid of than elected officials. And the more people they have in those positions, the greater influence they have over the actual nomination and election process, and the more people they are able to publicize/promote and groom for higher office. And for God's Sake! What the Hell do QUALIFICATIONS have to do with it? I'd sooner vote for an honest Constitutionalist with a sub-average IQ and no credentials at all than a Statist with a resume to make Kissenger's or G.H.W. Bush's look thin. What good are genius, ability, and experience if they are only employed to serve the wrong ends? ... Of course the problem in the US (and also the UK) now is that there is no real difference between the two major parties, except in rhetoric and posturing. The bulk of them are just tools of a bi-factional totalitarian entente. The supposed differences are all smoke and mirrors. Behind the scenes they support the same basic philosophy and policies (the ones that really matter, anyway). As the elite and intelligentsia see it, elections between 2 virtually identical parties are a way of 1) ensuring that national policy remains basically unchanged (i.e., denying the people a significant say in policy formation while giving them the illusion that they do have such a say) and 2) a way of preventing the gross corruption that naturally grows with unchallenged one-party rule.

I've always found it appalling and extremely lazy. I think everyone should vote on each candidate based on the merits of that candidate alone regardless of their party.

I do not find it AMAZING. Since the parties are set up to represent some main platforms in political thought, it wouldn't surprise me if all candidates a person votes for in their lifetime are of one of the major candidates. If I am an environmentalist, and gay with hopes of marrying my long-time partner, and my father marched in civil rights rallies in the 60's of which I am proud...I don't think it would surprise me in the least that I would always vote for the party memebers who are closer in political ideology on these issues...even for the rest of my life. The above, is not me, but a hypothetical person (although it is pretty close to me.) I have personally been very interested in some members of the other major party. I would have even voted for some. That "other" party, apparently doesn't know how to run their cross-party stars. They are more interested in cow-towing to their most extreme element. Parties are like certifying agencies. Underwriter's Laboratories certify electrical appliances as safe. Why would anyone find it amazing that I would choose to only purchase consumer products certified as safe by UL's? Same difference. If the party stands behind a candidate, that means that they are more likely to believe in the basic platforms that I support. Then, I listen to them to confirm that is true, and there you have it. Like a first screening process. If Underwriter's or my party is on their side, I don't have to worry about them AS MUCH as if they were unendorsed.