America's two major political parties are flawed in regards to political philosophy

"People have real inconsistencies, yes, but the chances that the inconsistencies that the people have match that of the standard model is very unlikely." That is true. However, they don't match the model for reasons different from the ones you're giving. We'll get into that more later. "Most people do not lean towards stability or change (current model)." I would argue that that is not the current model. I've accepted your definitions, but I don't accept that the words are used properly. You yourself point out that nobody really follows this model. "I understand that is just me, but it goes down to basic principles. People should have a standard code." But people don't have a standard code, and that's really the gist of my whole argument. In a pluralistic democracy you are never going to have a two party system that works. "The points that Conser/Lib take into account are not good." That is absolutely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is this is a democracy "Thus, a model excluding this (morality) is good" I'm going to go a bit off topic and then get back to the point. "Good" itself is a moral judgment. You can not have a coherent model without morality. A government that does not base its decisions on what's good or bad is insanity. Anyways, that's beside the point. Regardless of whether or not morality should (also a moral term) be used in determining one's stance on a political issue, it IS used. The fact of the matter is this is a democracy. The system is supposed to fit the people. You don't make a system and tell everybody who doesn't fit in that they're wrong, especially when the MAJORITY of people wouldn't fit in. Your model is not realistic. The problems and issues of politics are too complex to only have two sides. "Not everyone would go as far as anarchy or totalitarianism." Obviously, which is why your two parties wouldn't work. "The point is, people would make sure their views do not to such an extreme, thus they balance themselves out." I don't see how that would work, since you're only drawing another line right down the middle and telling everyone to pick a side. "Today, no one has a problem with being a staunch liberal democrat or a radical right-winged republican." That's not true. Most people I know try to say that they are moderates. "My model would stop these extreme from becoming popular" Again, I don't see how. All you're doing is saying that the extremes we have now are wrong and then setting up two new extremes. "I never that a statist/libertarian model would be perfect. i simply said it would be better." I don't see how it would be better. Everyone is, as you said, a mix of conservative and liberal, and everyone is, as you agreed, a mix of libertarian and statist. "I don't NEED to provide a counter model." I disagree. Reducto ad absurdum. You present what you believe is a problem. Then you present a model that removes that problem. If the model is the logical solution to the problem you presented, and that model is worse than the status quo, then your problem is at least incomplete, if not wrong altogether. "But it is simple AND it makes sense." But I don't think it makes sense. **********The summary of my arguments********** It does not take into account the complexity of politics. Take, for example, universal health care. What if I support it at the state level, but I think the Federal government should stay away? Is that a statist or libertarian position. Or what if the majority of a foreign country with a totalitarian government want liberated from their government. Is supporting action in that country libertarian of statist? What about giving drivers licenses to illegals? Life is far more complex than you model, making it less than useless. "The goal of my model is to better America, not to better one's self." A better America would have political parties that represent everyone.