Ok, I see now, that makes perfect sense.

I guess that seems like a logical solution..

One-third Democrat, one-third Republican and one-third 'other'. Who speaks for the one-third 'other'? Granted, these people are probably all over the political spectrum, but most of these people likely fall into a category of being politically independent-minded. I foresee the percentage of undecided voters growing in the future, as Republicans continue to ignore their conservative base and continue to slowly morph into a "Democrat-lite" political institution, and the Democrats continue to gravitate toward being the party of "freaks and geeks". Much of that growing sector of disillusioned voters will come from Christians. Statistics are often thrown around touting there are 40 million voting-age Christians in America, and that they make up the largest voting block. If a third party could round up most, or all, of these voters, pressure could be put on establishment "politics as usual".

Who will speak for the 33% (and growing) of voters that do not align with one of the 'big two' political parties? I admit that personally the Libertarian party tends to go too much to the Left on social issues for me. At times I make the knee-jerk comment that it is the 'Legalize Pot Party' (and I admit this isn't a totally fair assessment). There are other parties, such as the American Party and Constitution Party, which clearly embrace traditional constitutional government as the desired state of things. There are a number of other political parties of various sizes, some only covering specific regions. None of these parties on its own has been able to make any serious threat to the establishment parties.

As for me, I can no longer put politics over principal. No longer will I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I'll be looking for someone outside of the 'big two' to vote for who truly believes in what the Founders intended for us, their posterity. In local, state and Congressional elections, I'll just have to wait and see who runs. For president in 2004, I'm leaning towards the Constitution Party. They don't even have a candidate yet, but their platform reflects my views better than any other I've seen. The Constitution Party would be a natural home for any Christian, and the odds are good that their candidate won't be a Washington insider. We've had enough of those.

That is great. Instant Runoff Voting would allow you to do this without "wasting your vote". Please support it.

only trouble with that is that the rep-dems have all the money and power, and they crush anyone in there way

IRV puts an end to that.

The current winner take all system does not prevent third party candidates from succeeding. What prevents them from succeeding is the narrow view of topics. Once again, if a thrid party candidate would come along whose platform appealed to the masses, they would get elected (Jesse Ventura in Minnesota). However, as long as the Green Party continues to campaign solely on the environment what chance have they to win, and if someone is willing to vote for them because they believe in that platform they should. However, if they believe that there are other issues that are just as important, then they should look to other candidates. IRV will only cause more problems to an already confusing situation. The debacle that was the Florida election in 2000 is a prime example of that. People only had to vote for one candidate and it seems as if many couldn't do that correctly.

dmk

The bullshit in your post is too thick to cut.

What prevents third parties from competition is the strangle hold the reps and dems have over the process and media. IRV would not cause more problems it would create the chance for a better democracy since the process is much more fair than our current one. It is more fair for the voters and 3rd parties by eliminating the spolier vote syndrome allowing people to vote about what issues are important to them versus who they don't want to see in office.

He must have brown eyes...

People are entitled to a vote, one voice - one vote, this whole notion of oh I will vote for Candidate C but if he doesn't get enough votes then my votes should go to is a bunch of crock. It does not make the system better. As far as the spoiler vote goes, as long as a candidate gets on the ballot, people should have the right to vote for them. No one was complaining in 1992 when Perot took votes from Bush 41, but woe is me the outcry because Gore lost votes because of Nader or Buchanan or whoever.

One voice, one vote. The system has worked for 200 plus years we don't need to change it. Again the third party candidates need to change, come up with ideas, raise money, get your name and voice out there. Everyone thought that the election finance reform would save the election cycles, now we see that all they do is protect the incumbents. Perhaps it is time we did away with all election finance. Anyone wanting to be a candidate should have access to commercials on television and radio without being charged for them, and should have access to the post office for mailings at no cost. Do away with the need for money in an election and more candidates would become viable.

dmk