I agree with your first 2 sentences 100%.
I find major flaw in your 2nd paragraph assertion, as multiple parties work pretty well in other industrialized nations. Just ask any American who's lived abroad, or foreigners who've lived here for awhile.
Total disagreement with your last 2 paragraphs. As we've come to see, party politics isn't always on the up and up....just look at how both parties conspired to keep Nader for a national debate, or how the Dems sandbagged Howard Dean, and the Bernie Sanders. Nope, "1 man, 1 vote" is the best shot the people have of having an actual voice in politics, as they are not beholden to any party once they enter that voting booth.
As the song goes, "you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need!"
I didn't say multiple parties wouldn't work, Tacky.
I'm all for multiple parties with specific goals.
I've always thought that big tents were for a circus.
But the fact is that unless we start a new country to do it,
all elections will then be determined by the House of Representatives
because nobody will get a majority of electoral votes as required in a presidential election.
That's how the Constitution works.
And Constitutional amendments require more consensus than this nation may ever have again.
As for being beholden to parties,
I vote for policy positions, not people.
The existing parties have virtually no ideological overlap.
Thus NOT voting for my party's nominee would make no sense for me.
It has nothing to do with being beholden.
It has everything to do with my finding the other party's core values repugnant.
As for the Stones,
getting what you need is surviving.
Actually living requires getting what you want.
