Reply #28: I have not been a "party purist" until recently (2000)

[FlyingSquirrel]

And I believe that if we could just get enough Democrats to become party purists and form a reliable, straight-ticket voting, coming-out-for-every-election bloc, the Democratic Party could finally get itself a spine and stop compromising what are supposedly its core principles for fear of losing to the Repugs. This by itself would take care of the DLC because it would be clear that the majority wanted something else besides center-right compromising and WAS WILLING TO VOTE FOR IT - not just occasionally scream about it and then give up or be apathetic by the time the elections rolled around.

2006 was an excellent start but we're gonna have to prove that we'll consistently come out in strong numbers. Then if the party doesn't move our way and rid itself of the DLC... well, then it's time for a stronger push for change to the system itself.

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php
http://www.whytuesday.org/
http://www.foavc.org/

John Edwards: "I actually don't have a problem with the two-party system as long as the Democratic Party is strong and actually stands for something. So long as we strongly stand to end the war in Iraq, to make universal health care available to every single American, to end the extraordinary economic inequality in this country, to lift 37 million Americans out of poverty, and to do something about the moral crisis that is global warming. So long as my party is strong and shows some backbone and courage and leads on these big issues, then I don't have a problem with the two-party system."

Reading between the lines, if the Democratic Party DOESN'T do those things, then he does have a problem with the two-party system and so should we all. But we can give our party the backbone it needs by not being rainy-day voters, by coming out to EVERY election no matter how minor or whether there's a hot-button issue or the country has been led by the likes of W... EVERY election.