Some conservative Republicans have advocated the creation of a third major party to represent their libertarian values. This could be viable, considering the amount of support it would have from unsatisfied Republican voters.

I do not believe however that the two party system presents an illusion of choice. Voters select one of the two parties based on their desire for either less government or more government, and the parties attempt to fulfill their promises within the constraints of certain economic and social factors. 

Many people do not see any similarities between the two parties because of the show that has been going on for decades. While democrats and republicans fight in front of the camera, they are slapping each other's backs at their 2,000 dollar a plate fundraisers in black tie, with limousines and other extravagances.

While I believe some party members truly hate members of the "other" party, for the most part, they are all just trying to keep their cushy jobs with sickening perks. I mean really, spending tens of millions of dollars to get a Congressional seat which only makes a few hundred thousand a year? It's the Chewbacca defense all over again.

I mean COME ON PEOPLE, what is wrong with this picture.........

By far the most expensive U.S. Senate race in California history remains Democrat Dianne Feinstein's 1994 victory over Michael Huffington. That race cost $44.3 million, much of it from Huffington's personal fortune.

Those totals are dwarfed by recent governor's races. Spending by major candidates in last year's gubernatorial recall was close to $88 million, and the 2002 governor's race hit $114 million.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/11/election2004/20_22_5112_10_04.txt

114 million for a governor's race?

When are we, the people, going to pull our heads out of our asses?

So here is my view on the parties themselves and it has to do with the fundamental definitions that the party names originated from, republic and democracy.

"Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

A Republican favors a republic.

A Democrat favors a democracy.

However, today, democracy and republic are interchangeable leaving no difference between the system of governments in relation to how the U.S. government is structured today. 

Therefore that leads me to conclude that there is no actual difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Any issues sided by each party tailor to a certain American majority that helps party members get elected.  However, if you look throughout history, democrat or republican never adhered to their party line promises and instead have made decisions that pertained to the best interests of America.  Some say those interests are the corporations, the people, or self-interested politicians.  Either way, voting among party lines has no value if you wish to have some sort of implementation of change.  A general rule in political science states that any elected official after 90 days of inauguration that does not make any party line policy change promised during election, that officials promised policy change will never happen.

Vote wisely.