I realize that much harm is done by many voters and even some politicians who treat politics like it is a rivalry between two major sports teams, the Republicans and Democrats. For example, “conservative Republican” has meaning, but “Republican” is not particularly definitive. Vowing to never vote for a Republican ever again because the very fiscally irresponsible George W. Bush was a Republican makes no sense, though many people think this way. Voters' bad habit of attributing meaning to labels that have little or none is a major problem, but that apparently is not the problem the group No Labels is trying to solve, as Goldberg points out.

Mother of 4, It seems that for you, moral dilemmas are inevitable. Is it not immoral for you to vote for ANY Republican today since the party as a whole does not adhere to a specific set of principles or beliefs? If a true fiscal, constitutional and religious conservative campaigns in a general election as a Republican in your state or district, are you morally obligated to stay home and not vote for that candidate, or to vote for the Libertarian or Constitution party candidate? Is it immoral for you to register as a Republican? If you yourself run for office, do you believe it would be immoral for you to run as a Republican?

I don't understand why you insist that as a member of the Republican Party (representative or senator) you are morally obligated to support Olympia Snowe. I certainly do not think you are obligated. I believe you should stand for your principles regardless of what others in the party may think, and I most certainly would not label you a fraud for doing so. Ron Paul often disagrees with others in his Republican party and frequently votes differently than they do. I do not consider him to be a fraud or a hypocrite. In fact, I highly respect and admire him for it. The major two parties are very broad tents that encompass many disparate factions. I can identify with one or more of these factions, but in my opinion it is impossible to...

Mother of 4, If the Republican Party held all candidates and office holders accountable to a particular set of principles, it necessarily would shrink in size with regard to seats in government, constituents and funding. This is a hard and practical reality that must be respected, whether we like it or not. Citizens have the freedom to support candidates that adhere to a particular set of principles in primary elections.

"Nearly a decade of rising productivity and growth and budget discipline had put the U.S. government in a position to generate surplus's 'as far as the eye could see,' " Budget discipline played an important role, but rising productivity and growth in the 1990s also reduced deficits by increasing tax revenue. A BOOMING economy of that sort cannot be maintained indefinitely regardless of who is in the white house or in congress, so it is unrealistic to expect that the deficit reductions of that decade would continue "as far as the eye could see?" The idea that the Bush administration or a Republican congress destroyed the chance of a complete elimination of the debt is ludicrous. Furthermore, the official debt of ten to thirteen...

All political parties concerned in this discussion, as well as factions within parties, would benefit tremendously from a simple election reform that allows a single voter to cast a ballot for multiple candidates. This would be much better than the problematic vote-for-only-one plurality method currently used. The vote-splitting and "spoiler-effect" created by alternative parties and movements would be considerably alleviated, if not eliminated, if voters could vote for more than one candidate. Voters would also be more inclined to vote for their favorite candidate rather than "vote for the lesser of two evils".

Those who want to work within a party to bring about reform would also be given more influence and power to choose...

By the time George W. Bush was running as an incumbent in 2004, many of us realized he certainly was not a conservative, but we still voted for him because he was better than the alternative major party candidate at the time (John Kerry). I am sick and tired of having to make this type of compromise. I would like to have had the opportunity to simultaneously vote for a legitimately conservative third party candidate AND George Bush.

A voting method should be implemented that allows each voter the freedom to vote for multiple candidates competing for the same seat. For example, in any mayoral, gubernatorial, congressional or presidential election, a voter should be allowed to vote for the Libertarian, Constitution and Republican...