Thanks for that very clear site, AquarianGoddess, and I do not use the Sidereal in chart erection either, I just thought it would be a good point for discussion.
A number of people I know, however, do prefer it over the Tropical. Whether the Sidereal zodiac is easily divisble into 30° signs is itself arguable, and there are at least some (sidereal) astrologers who have developed equal-sign divisions, not from modern astronomy, which makes these divisions more arbitralily, but from significantly positioned Alpha stars within a constellation, for example, Spica in Virgo.
I also wonder whether one has to choose one or the other, or whether there is a way of accepting both. I'll try to outline what I have in mind extremely briefly, and keep to only important relevant points.
A key question generally asked is whether, as Minderwiz pointed out, the signs are indicators of seasonal influence or whether the energy emanates from the constellations. If it is solely seasonal-tropical, then why do Tropical astrologers not invert the signs for those living in the Southern hemisphere (and it is interesting to note that many Australian Leos I have met, though clearly Leos, nonetheless have some characteristics more reminiscent of northern Aquarians)? On the other hand, if one accepts the spiritual foundation of the physical, then there does appear to be good grounds for also considering that the zodiacal dispositional energies emanate from a particular region of the celestial 'sphere'.
Personally, I tend to accept both views. Where I disagree with sidereal astrologers is that the direct visual line of sight is the determining factor in the drawing of a chart. Though the influences very well emanate from a region, as a window through which certain spiritual beings allow a flow of certain energies, this may very well spiral its way towards the Earth, 'entering' at its Tropically determined 'gates'.
