[poincaredisk]

I can't speak for the OP, but in my country we have several parties, so I can express my political opinions in a more complex way than the left-right linear spectrum. The parties don't position themselves by just being "more left" and "more right", but tend to cater to a specific audience. For example, we have many LGBT issues, and I can vote for a party that spends a significant part of their political power on improving the situation. If I wanted to focus on economy, there's a party who I'm mostly aligned with, but unfortunately I don't like their conservative and even far-right tendencies, so I prefer another, more populist and pro-social but still solid party. There are some parties which are completely not for me, but which cater to, for example, farmers and have a significant following in rural population (they're slightly conservative, but pro-social and have nothing to do with far right, just to give you an idea of the differences). And yes, we have the mandatory populist party.

I don't have a party that I agree with 100%, but I can decide what is most important for me and vote for a party that wants it. And most importantly, if I don't like my choice, I can vote for another party next year without making a 180.

I think that's nice.

[lapcat]

> I think that's nice.

Agreed. I like the idea of political pluralism much more than the idea of a so-called "centrist" party.

We do have other parties in the US, such as the Libertarian and Green parties, but our system makes it very difficult for them. They have to fight like crazy for ballot access, they're locked out of news coverage, they don't receive public funding, and they are reviled as "spoilers" by the two major parties.