I've been pretty pleased with my Representatives and Senators, so it's been fine.
I've actually been relatively pleased with the House, as well.
The Senate has gotten on my last nerve, but it's far better than the Dims controlling it. President Bush has been good and bad.
I plan on getting involved in the Primaries in the future.
As for now, I see the Constitution and Libertarian parties as a waste. They're as relevant as the Greens and the Communist Worker's Party.
If the Con Party was a waste then that would be an improvement over 2004. The Con Party actually joined JOHN F. KERRY in calling for a recount of Ohio, which we in Ohio had to pay for. Unless the Con Party was so delusional that they actually thought a recount would give THEM Ohio (unlikely, but possible given their distance from political reality) then their support of Kerry showed their true colors -- stooges for the 'Rats.
The Con Party draws fewer votes nationally than the number of people the Latinos can put on the streets in one large city. With such low numbers their strategery doesn't matter -- neither do they.
The fundamental flaw in the argument of the third party losers is that they reduce the two major parties to one identity each -- i.e. "there are no differences between the two parties". Really? No differences between Ted Kennedy and Tom Tancredo? No differences between Cynthia McKinney and Jeff Sessions? Do you third party geniuses realize just how foolish you sound?
I've always looked at it from a pragmatic viewpoint - voting against the lesser of two evils...But this thread got me thinking...
If you believe in the representative republic system, and that the most votes wins, then from a philosophical standpoint, you should be voting for the best candidate, whatever their party. Or, vote for the best party. Ideally, better and more representative candidates will emerge over time if peoples' votes reflected their own philosophies, rather than simply votes 'against' a particular party (casting a vote for a mediocre candidate instead of who you really think is the best candidate).
The 'lesser of two evils' method of voting muddies the whole process and actually reinforces the problem. It may work in the short term, but is definitely destructive in the long term.
Yet, it could be said that it is inevitable for the political system to degrade over time and that voting for the 'lesser of two evils' actually slows that process, while voting for the 'best' candidates usually means you're at odds with pick of the 'masses'.
I'll vote Republican in '08 if Rumsfield, Pence, or other select few run (Guiliani, Romney). I'll never vote Democrat, but will consider Libertarian or Constitutional Party.