Not everyone does that, but to each his/her own I say when it comes to such choices. While my overall politics do lean heavily to the right, I've been a registered Independent since I reached legal voting age. George Washington (who was Independent) once said to an extent that the instant we start associating with political parties is the instant we will become a nation divided... he was right.

I pick the party that comes close to my views

I don't think most Americans are all the way left or all the way right. But we're too lazy, and let's face it, powerless, to really change the way our government is structured. We have given up on our vote really counting for anything, as politics is bought and paid for with big lobbying by big business. I don't have hope that in my lifetime a change of the status quo will happen. The fire has a spark here and there, but it's going to take the next generation who has more tolerance of each other and better understanding of how they want their world to be, to really be able to transform our government and how it's run. I just hope they don't give up and give in as much as we did.

Political parties are for the weak of mind. It's just another form of tribalism.

Quoting a friend of mine, regarding the claim that both political parties are equally bad: "Um, one party supports nazis, rapists, and pedophiles. The other party is a bunch of Barney Fifes. I'll take my chances with Barney."

There's a thing that applies here in the US called Duverger's Law. It's the only accepted law in politics from what I understand. And that says that at the national level, given how our election system works, there will never be more than 2 viable political parties. There will certainly be more than those two, but the others will never attain appreciable votes.

If we had the Australian system, say, or any multiparty shared power system like the UK, it would be a different story. But in the US, absent enormous fundamental changes in how our representative system is structured, the most a Libertarian or Green can do is cast an impotent symbolic protest vote. There is no actual hope that, say, the Greens could ever win, unless they manage to step into the steaming wreckage of one of the existing major parties and take over that position. Something happened like this when the Whigs went down in flames many generations ago. But in that scenario the Greens would likely have to become something more generally appealing than what they are, and they wouldn't be the Greens anymore, but probably just another watered-down and not-yet-disgraced version of the party they replaced.

So I generally hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils (or at best, mediocrities) presented to me every election cycle. Because of this inherent lack of enthusiasm I generally have not been involved in political campaigns other than as a voter. And it explains the low rate of voting in this country.

It also explains why I was deeply involved in campaigning for Sanders in 2016, as he stood a chance of getting the Democratic nomination despite being an Independent. But as usual people looked a once in a lifetime gift horse in the mouth, decided by a whisker or three to go with the standard-issue plutocrat (Clinton) and the rest is history. And we kinda deserve what we now have.

I actually think Sanders wouldn't have been as good at governing as he was at campaigning, but he was as pure a soul and as honest a man as politics could produce, at least at that level, and he would have been far better for America than the Tangerine Caligula. I think Bernie is toast for 2020 if he runs, because of his age and the lingering optics of his wife's mismanagement of her college presidency and the simple fact that he's Yet Another Grumpy Old White Guy, no matter that he's one of the best possible of that species.

At least I didn't sit on the sidelines when there was a real alternative to the usual. But ... it wasn't to be.

Liberal progressive - I identify with Dems

Because we choose what makes the most sense to us logically based on our personal life experiences.

Humans have evolved as "herd" animals that form into groups. We originally did this because living in groups better insured our survival and safety. Those who don't conform are seen as a danger to the group (herd).

Being a part of a large group gives people a sense of belonging and safety. The same thign applies to religion as to politics, but peopel generally congregate in the groups that make them feel will be best for thier own well beign and survival, as if we did nto live in a (so-called) civilized society, but are still in hunter/gatherer groups who are in competition for survival. All of out animal instincts that we evolved with are still with us even if we dont' recognize then as such, they are still playing role in how we behave. Most instincts are expressed as wht we refer to as "emotions". Just consider, is fear and instinct, an emotion and where does one differentiate instinct from emotion when there is so much overlap.

Most people make the mistake of thinking that because humans are capable of rational thought that we are wholly rational creatures. We are not. Just like peopel will choose willful ignorance over rational thought with religion, they will do the same with politics, and often for the same reasons. They want to belong and dont' want to stand out.

neither of your answers suits me, and your question is a bit on the loaded side. anyway we only have one major political party. we also have a criminal organization, currently in power. my assessment has nothing to do with tribalism, nothing to do with who is "correct" and nothing to do with strangeness. it has to do with what each party, on the whole, and most of its representatives, believes in and works for. those who think both parties are the same have not been paying attention... or have been paying attention to propaganda.

g

Tribalism