You're viewing a single thread.
This goes hand-in-hand with political stereotyping and is hard to avoid, annoyingly. (I am just as guilty of stereotyping, admittedly.)
But yeah, common views between parties should be a good thing. Sometimes those views absolutely are not "good", but that is what it is.
Party line voting in Congress is disgusting and it's not how governments should operate. On that note, bills shouldn't be written for the purpose of antagonizing an opposing party. I don't care who wrote it to begin with.
While there is a bit of truth in all politicians being the same, regardless of the party, it doesn't (shouldn't?) apply to ideologies as a whole. Unfortunately, it seems ideologies are dictated by the politicians and not the people, these days.
Ugh. What a twisted web we weave for ourselves....
I don't think you can really get rid of party line voting. Most voters don't want to or cannot spend much time researching politicians and mostly vote based on party preference. Elected representatives therefore need the support of their party for reelection, giving the party leverage.
I'd argue this only makes it more important to have a viable third party if not 4+. Comcast and AT&T both enjoy using their duopoly status to overcharge you. Doesn't mean they're the same. Does mean they're both evil and don't deserve a state sanctioned duopoly.
I'm all in favour of having viable third parties. Living in a country with viable third parties though, I can tell you that it won't fix all problems. Just look at last weeks EU parliament elections.