Divisons Part One: The state of things.(Inc.)

The country is becoming more and more polarized as time goes on. We can't agree on anything and even the little things turn into all out wars.this is the part of the paragraph where I'm supposed to prove my above statements but do I really need to.

You could say this is a result of the two party system. With a country of over 300 million people are two choces really enough? If you're pro life and for gay marriage what do you do? If your position on life is your main issue then odds are you voted for George Bush. However if you did would you be happy? With Republican control of all three branches why wasn't abortion ended or at least severely limited and why would gay marriage take precedent. Now for the flip side, if you're anti-war but happy with your healthcare which side would you choose? If ending the Iraq War was your major issue odds are you would have voted for Barack Obama. However if that's the case would you be happy that he neglected his bringing one brigade a month promise and is instead focusing his efforts in changing health care? Not only are we as a country being pushed into teams which don't wholly reflect our beliefs and then are abandoned in an attempt to woo the mythical independents, but once this "Representatives" get elected we all to often find them pursue paths that they neglected to mentioned on the campaign trail.

So, are more parties the answer? No. While it would be nice to be able to fully back a candidate would that really change anything? You would get more choices and by virtue of competition it would be harder for a politician to keep their job but you would still have the same problems. Just because you believe strongly in something doesn't mean the majority of this country dose. In a multi party system your team would still need to compromise to get anything done.

Introduction and Inventory.

Hello my name is Ryan Stevenson I'm a piciean male born in the year of the tiger. I'm creating this blog because I have a lot of ideas in my head that I want to make relatively tangible and it will focus more on policy proposals and general ideology than it will on commentary.
To understand my ideas you will need to know what I believe. The most basic aspect of my beliefs is that everyone is inherently different, wither that is because of millions of years of trial and error or because of a higher power,it doesn't matter. The important thing is not everyone is the same and like there is no cure for the common cold because there is no such thing as the common cold, there is no one solution for everyones problems. Thus, I consider Federalism the only real way to keep the peace without sacrificing justice or freedom. If the bible belt wants to use letivican law, let them and if San Fransisco wants to kill off all the straight white males in its city boarders, let them(then again maybe some restrictions will be necessary). People have such radically different views on what they want their environments to be the only way to reconcile them is to either have one definitive dictator deiced what it should be or to divvy up the land. Since, the first doesn't seem very free so I recomend the latter.
This shouldn't seem too strange because this is pretty much the idea that America was founded on. The original idea was the country would be divided into various areas called states which would handle their own business hence the name of the country, The united States of America. That was before a civil war 2 world wars a depression, a cold war and "liberals" after which power became more centralised.
As you can probably tell I'm not a fan of centralised power. To be honest I'm pretty antisocial and don't trust any form of organization, look back on history can you really blame me?