LAST EDITED ON 11-11-12 AT 04:14 AM (EST)The likelihood of a third and/or fourth party has diminished with time, with the media influence and public perception. George Wallace was the last serious candidate to meet the criteria of a viable third-party political candidate at the national level, although candidates still exist at the state and local levels.
One of the reasons the Democrats succeeded with this election in 2012 is their inclusiveness, races of color, genders of equality, marriages of choice, appeal to the youth, and compassion for the will of the electorate, all of which were lacking in the Republican platform.
Somehow social issues were given as much equal if not greater weight than the actual issues of government and fiscal management, and this created a split. One could be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and yet find themselves (like me) in a dilemma which approaches to adopt and reject.
How can I vote for a party which condones those ethical positions that I reject, in spite of my agreement with their vision for less but more effective government? How can I support a party which chooses to intrude on the personal choices people make without their having any affect upon other citizens? Does someone else choosing to have a first trimester abortion or smoking pot have any real effect on me and my daily life, including the taxes I must pay?
The Republican party has become schizophrenic, with multiple yet conflicting identities, unable to split due to the "two party" meme that has lasted for decades, while the Democrats willingly take into their fold anyone who feels left out (no pun intended).
Foo dogs by tribe