One charge against political parties is that they lack clear visions on governing ways and issues. And, when they do take a stance on issues, the positions taken appeal to a narrow set in society, powerful minorities. Party organizations adopt these narrow positions becaause they are forced by minorities with great powers, according to the critics. Literally, that analysis is illogical and thus falacious. If given the benefit of the doubt, (exagerated for greater emphasis) it would then mean that these powerful few have such an imense source of power in government influence, that a whole party is forced to conform. The contitutional seperation of powers was designed in a way to prevent such tragedies as these. It could be possible, but highly unlikely. Critics claim that because of narrow positions on controversial issues(with such strong intensities, e.g. abortion) visions on how to obtain a more liveable society in America are not defined well.The second charge, similarly related to the first, charges that party promises and platforms held by candidates for elections are aimed mainly at getting elected more than governing and trying to make a difference. They do and say whatever it takes to get elected and stay elected, with little or no concern as to how the people feel or what they want. They tell people what they want to hear rather than what they really stand for (I'm not so sure if the majority of politicians really stand for anything moral or ethical, at all). These dishonest practices have damaged our "democracy"-or so they call it. Candidates who lack solid governing ideas often use marketing experts and image consultants to get voters' support. The result becomes increasingly more apparent with each election period: Voters are ever more skeptical and suspicious when deciding whom to trust and believe. I cannot speak for all voters but I can speak on behalf of those I know. We feel, as many others do, that you ...
