I've said several times that I think both parties are pretty much the same, and I'm sticking to it. I think we need a solid third party.

The question is what political party SHOULD be in control of the Congress. The answer is whichever elects a majority of members to that body, be it Democrat, Republican, or PaintYerArsePurple Party. If the question is changed to which party is BEST SUITED to be in control of Congress, the answer is clearly the PaintYerArsePurple Party. They couldn't do any worse than the lunkheads in the other two parties. 

On a sidebar, the notion I see expressed here that a Congress of independent politicians instead of Democrats and Republicans would do away with political corruption is extremely naive.  Corruption has to do with power and greed, not political party membership. 

None. The best scenario would be to institute a law that demands only independent (not Independent party) individuals to be nominated and elected to the congress. It may be the best way to end political corruption and have a real independent congress that would legislate for the American people, not for a party's political agenda.

Update: since such a law would not come out of the congress (guess why, LOL) it wouldn't matter much. If enough support for such a change could be gathered among constituents it could be submitted by each State for voting upon. After all, members of congress are elected locally, not appointed by the President or his party.

Here is a novel idea, how bout putting the people in control? The judges control our country right now.

Not the Democrats.

How the hell do you answer a multiple-choice question with a rating? Whatever. Anyway, the Independent party.

Republicans.

the party that the american people choose to have represent them, that is why we have elections. that being said, elections are being decided by a quarter of the people eligible to vote. to be honest, i really don't mind making decisions for them.

It doesn't matter which political party controls Congress. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are addicted to pork barrel spending. Granted, their priorities differ along the margins, but it doesn't matter. The founders original intention was for the Congress to check the President's power and vice versa along with the Supreme Court. When one political party controls the agenda in Washington, you lose that oversight. Granted the founders never really envisioned the rise of political parties like they have over the past 200 years, but they can nonetheless act as conduit for checks and balances. As of this writing, the Republicans control both the Congress and the Presidency. One party domination creates a lot of graft and excesses. The Republican party, the party of fiscal responsibility, has gone on a spending spree. Heck, they've even increased spending on the National Endowment of the Arts, a program that has been targeted by conservatives for elimination every year for the past 30 years. The last time we had so much cooperation between the Congress and the President, we had Lyndon Johnson. His guns and butter economics led to the stagflation (inflation and economic stagnation) of the 1970's. The situation is much the same today. A lot of people say they dislike the gridlock that divided government brings, but it should be noted here that the system was designed to have a lot of gridlock. Two sides can't agree on an issue, so spending priorities are left to the side. James Madison once said that You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. Government grew the least during the Administrations of Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton. Both of these Presidents had opposition Congresses. Of course, Clinton benefited from Newt Gingrich forcing Clinton to adopt a deficit reduction program that really helped get us on the road to prosperity in the 1990's. It helped that the Republican Congress and Clinton couldn't agree on spending priorities. Now that doesn't mean that national priorities are ignored, in fact, divided government helps in that it forces the political parties to come to an agreement on key issues. This is what happened with welfare reform in the 1990's. It could happen again with pressing issues this decade like health care. When you have one party controlling the government, their goal is to consolidate their base; there is no compromise and most importantly there is no oversight of the Congress and the President. George Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill that has come out of Congress. That is very rare; Congress is spending too much and the President is willing to go along with it because it helps his re-election prospects. The goal of most politicians is to get re-elected, responsible policies take a back seat. So when you vote, it's probably better to split your vote between the parties.

The greens or some very leftist Democrats. Ideally though no-one

Neither. I dislike political parties.

The republican party, of course.

Well duh, whichever one you like better.

Neither. Congress should be split in such a way that no party ever has control of it. This would force the sides to work together and it would keep the vocal nuts on the far right or left sides of the political spectrum from forcing their agenda on this country.

Republican all the way, baby.