Should thier be a litmus test to join the political parties?

[phk]

Should thier be a litmus test to join the political parties?

[Gabu]

Uh, no.  Way to alienate basically everyone but a tiny select group.

[Speed of Sound]

absolutely not

[dazzleman]

No.  Who would administer the test anyway?

Membership in political parties is open to anybody.  A party may withhold its endorsement from a person running for office, but it certainly can't expel members or restrict members because they don't hold the "right" views on issues, not should it be able to.

[AkSaber]

No way!!!

[A18]

No, but obviously you can be a false Republican or Democrat.

[MaC]

something sometimes I wish my party would abolish. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

something sometimes I wish my party would abolish. 

Exactly. Only when you admit Stalinists will your party become mainstream.

[PADem]

No, but obviously you can be a false Republican or Democrat.

Not necessarily. There has to be something tying you to the party you choose. Me, for example.. Socially I'm to the right of 95% of Democrats, but I believe strongly in Democratic economic policy, and I believe that my party is the less extreme.

Just as Lincoln Chafee is not a false republican. If he were, then he'd have switched parties years ago.

[YRABNNRM]

Judging from the title I think there should be a literacy test.

[MODU]

No, but then again, there shouldn't be any parties to begin with.

[MaC]

something sometimes I wish my party would abolish. 

Exactly. Only when you admit Stalinists will your party become mainstream.

And I can't wait 'til Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Fred Phelps, John Ashcroft, and Tom Delay join your party to ensure you'll take back congress and win the presidency in 2008

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Democrats should withhold support from candidates who support right-wing ideas like racial profiling, school uniforms, mandatory drug testing, or banning pseudoephedrine allergy remedies in the name of the War on Drugs.

If the Democrats don't take a stand for civil liberties and workers' rights, then it's their own damn fault if they lose.

[MasterJedi]

No, very bad idea. What a way to lose a lot of elections.

[Dave from Michigan]

no stupid Idea

[MaC]

there's no litmis test, but there's definitely a social litmis test.  Hence the term RINO for McCain and Guliani types and DINO for Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman types.

[Hitchabrut]

No.

[bergie72]

No -- no litmus test.

I was registered Republican for years, but didn't fit in neatly over there.  Even today, I'm not a 'textbook' Libertarian... 

I'd have to create my own party with my own platform.  And there would be only 5 people in the country that could join   :-)

Bad idea all around.

[Giant Saguaro]

I don't see that there would be a point in it. There are regional differences in parties, for one thing - which is a problem the Dems are facing right now, i.e., the difference between the Dems in the northeast and the south and midwest. There are differences in GOPers in these regions as well and the west coast too. People join political parties for all different reasons, I think, so I don't think it would be a good idea for there to be one reason or one set of guidelines under which you join a party. Furthermore, people can change - in that even they'd be askes to leave or maybe not. No, I don't think it would serve much purpose.

Just listen to the positions the candidates take and go in that direction, I say, regardless of party.