Independent states? Um, so that means they could run things a Democrat or Republican way, as they choose? Wouldn't that essentially make the other two dictatorships in a roundabout way? Don't see that going very well.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

Not sure what you mean about the other two being a dictatorhsip--One republican, one democratic dictatorship? If that's what you mean, nah, not talking about that.
Each set of states---currently 20 for Rs 20 for Dems and 10 for Ind.

Each set of states gets to elect whomever they want as long as it's someone from that state's party. Therefore those elected officials have term limits, accountability to voters, etc...

__________________


"If you can't do something smart, do something right."

Do you know what other "Republics" only allow one party? Dictatorships, oligarchies, and corrupt governments. The U.S.S.R, the P.R.C. 1950's Mexico, etc. all come to mind.

Besides this, the states all have sizable minority parties. California for example, is a very Democratic, yet about 40% of the population votes Republican, and there is a Republican Governor.

How about we allow each state to decide who they want to elect, regardless of the party that person goes under.

__________________

I actually prefer partianship.(sp?)
I believe it creates an enviroment better suited for meeting needs across a wide spectrum of citizens.

__________________


"If you can't do something smart, do something right."

There a drawback to that crazy idea. It is trying to happen right now. Of course, the two party monopoly won't have it, because in the party leadership there is now room for other parties. Our party system is a failure. What was first a reasonable facsimile of a democracy, but now a failed, miserable system of unrepresentative government that has no interest in listening to the needs of the many, just the tiny few.