Why do we keep settling on the lesser of two evils for our pick for president? Why can't we have more options, like people who actually have a chance of winning? I never thought too much about this, until I took a test (just for fun) to see which candidate fit my views better. It was a fairly decent test, measuring my stance on the issues and matching it against Bush and Kerry. I matched Kerry more - but it was barely 50%.

Isn't it totally ludicrous that we're forced to stuff our diverse views into the mold of one of two candidates?

I saw something comparing Joe Hoeffel (D) and Arlen Specter (R) (in Pennsylvania). Joe Hoeffel seems like a miniature Kerry. I don't have a problem with Kerry, but I do have a problem with people who can't develop their own agenda and stance. At least Specter is an individual.

Regardless, I can't wait 'till November 3rd. God willing, this election will actually be OVER by then.

Money, and the "winner take all" system that all but Maine and Nebraska use for their electoral votes. I'd like to see an ammendment forcing all the states to use the Maine system, and only require a plurality of the electoral vote, instead of a majority to win the presidency. Then other parties would have a shot at it.

You'll never get the money out of the system because this is a huge country, and candidates have to buy air time on TV and radio to reach a significant amout of people.

Synikul - I'm not sure how Maine works, but if it's proportional representation (electoral college votes split accoding to the proportion of the popular vote in the state) then that may not be ideal. In the UK, where more parties are established and represented, there hasn't been a case of a single party winning a majority for a very, very long time. I suspect that if the system was introduced in the US and other parties became more feasible then you would rarely see any candidate win an outright victory. Although I suppose that you could then say that whoever gets the most votes wins, regardless of a majority.

On the money point you could legislate so that each party has a certain amount of airtime allocated, to use as it wishes. This is more or less the case here, though I'm not sure how much time each party is actually allowed, and why bigger parties have more airtime. This also spares people pulling their hair out over the constant barrage of advertising that I hear the swing states have been subjected to by both parties.


I think the problem actually lies more with the elections for the House of Representatives (and then maybe the Senate). If you could establish other parties in there then you would see other presidential candidates emerge. How do elections for those places work?

Each state is allocated electoral votes according to the size of its congressional delegation. Each state has 2 senators, and a number of representatives based on the population. Each state gets two electoral votes for the senators, and one each for the representatives. Most states give all of their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular election for the state. Maine gives the two votes for the senators to the candidate that wins the majority of the popular vote statewide, the other votes are given to the candidate that wins the majority in each congressional district. In 2000, Gore got 3 of Maine's 4 electoral votes. He won the statewide majority, and the majority in one district. Bush won the majority in the other district, so he got that vote.

If every state did that, there wouldn't be a Florida 2000 situation, and no candidate would be able to write off entire states.

There are already too many constraints on spending money. It's a free speech issue. If I want to spend my money to pay for my favorite candidate to have a TV commercial, then I should be able to do so without regulation.