We actually have more parties but they are not included in the debates and do not have as many members and hence fewer advertisements and stump speaches. The party closest to our forefathers' intentions is probably the constitution party but which its current views, I doubt if it will EVER get sufficient members to be an option (with good reason in my humble opinion -some of their interpretations of the constitution or lack of coverage in the constitution are downright scary). Then there is the green party, the libertarians, american nazi party, american reform party, social democrats USA, Prohibition party, and too many others to list. As surprising as the american nazi party is, the U.S. Marijuana Party is just as surprising to me.

For some interesting (and sometimes scary) reading:

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm



>SNIP
>>
>>Nothing is ever as simple as what ANYONE can state here, but the best we can do is make a point or two or three, give an example, and remain civil.
>
>Ain't that the truth!
>As an outsider looking in, though, I'd have to say that having only two REAL political parties that, worst of all, control all the levers that could lead to more real choices for the people, just about guarantees lousy government there in perpetuity.
>Not that things are that much better here with 5 or so parties, but at least the control is watered down so that newer parties have a chance to establish. And every now and then we get a minority government that forces politicians to consider "the people" a little more than usual.
>
>>
>>BTW, I saw on the SouthwestFox web site that Jim Nelson was attending that conference, and I got a little pumped. Then I saw he is from California. Oh, well. Some day...
>
>Seems my name is about the same as "John Smith"... I've met (in person) 3 Jim Nelsons here in Toronto (not related in any way) and heard of another. Some day I will get to some VFP conference.
>
>cheers