Its unfortunate you feel Americans are so easily swayed. Its more unfortunate I AGREE with you. I try not to be swayed by BS commercials and constant crap slinging but im sure im probably swayed sub consciously.

I listen to the arguments and look at the facts and how they handle the issues then i decide based upon that.

A third party would be a good thing, as would a 4th and 5th. It would do a couple of things, notably removing the influence of the political extremes as they push the nominating party. Right now both party candidates run to the extreme to get the base out to win the nomination and then race back to the center to win the election. A moderate party might balance that and actually drive the other party candidates to shine the extremes on and then actually compete for the moderates.

The other benefit would be grid lock. The less the government does the better and the time it would take to build a governing coalition in a three party system and the level of comprehensive negotiating that would be required would mean more moderate legislation.

The current health care legislation would never have been passed were there to be a legitimate 3rd party.

The challenge is political infrastructure. The imbedded money and organizational machines are so wedded to the two partys that it would be difficult to either create one that could compete with them or break them up.

You also need a viable third party candidate and that is not Ron Paul, Rob Barr or Alan Keyes. These gents are all either two extreme or too old in the case of Paul to be considered a viable presidential candidated.

The third party would not have to be huge, only 5-8% of the electorate and that would swing the election. Perhaps with the internet it would be possible to overcome the fundraising problems.

I make it happen, you need to have happen what happened when Perot ran, a super rich gent who is welling to shell out a ton of dough. Perot only spent to get himself into power. You'd need someone who was willing to spend the money to create a party with the first candidate as an after thought with the sole purpose to create legitimacy and then make it an on-going concern, not a one time deal.

A third party might be a solution, but it is not going to solve anything at this time, as it is just a bandaide. After taking a bit of time to think on this, the solution, and it is going to be one that will end up having to hurt in the long run, is to vote out all incumbents across the board. You see, by constanently voting a person back into office, it sends several messages, one being that the person with the most money can win all of the time, and a person can get comfortable in the seat he or she occupies. They tend to forget the one thing that got them there in the first place, that is that the elected official is there at the will of the people, not off of special interest. By voting out incumbents on a regular basis sends a far greater message, and that is don't get too used to being there, cause in the next election you will not be considered. Now does it mean we just abandon them to the wind, no, but if they do a good job, move them up the political ladder or send them on their way if they did not go a good job.
Most politicians, from what I have heard, once they get into office, a majority of their time is spent on getting relected, rather than doing a good job for which they were hired to do. Ask yourself this, if you were a manager of a store or a company and you had an employee like any number of the politicians, would you keep that person around or fire them?
More people need to think in terms like that, and see how quickly the government changes for the better.

I see absolutely no problem allowing anyone to run for office. I feel we should have a multi-party system. It should be heavily regulated so as to prevent the one with the most money winning. Maybe help clamp down on the obvious corruption.

What about as many parties the people want? May the best party with the best agenda and credibillity win.

Take a peek at Europe....watch how most countries over there have constructed their government. It will not be a garanty for a heaven on earth but it will reduce the chance for a corrupt government.

I still belief that the american government and election system is designed in such a way that it can easily be controlled, corrupted and stolen.

Its true, our fore-fathers didnt feel we were 'smart' enough to vote for the 'right' candidate, so they created the electoral college.

We are (for the most part) smart enough to decide for ourselves. An entire generation of kids (myself included) are so competely jaded and turned off to voting because WE voted for the winner (the winnder obviously being Al Gore) and got screwed. I dont think enough people realise how much that damaged our perception of America, and our faith in the voting system.

I personally vote in every election but i know ALOT of people like myself who say 'why vote? it doesnt matter, the results are predetermined anyways.'

The sad part is the results ARE probably predetermined. I think before a multi-party system will work we need to dig in deep and eradicate the cancer and corruption that has infested this country. No more clandesthine operations by shady organizations to keep people in power. Each candidate should be given the same amount of money to work with and thats it.

No more special interests donations, no more 'favors'.

Sorry im ranting a bit

We nearly had the possibility of Proportional Representation it in Britain over the last few days. Guess what, neither Labour nor Conservative were willing to have a refrerendum on it, even though it would have meant Labour staying in power. Who ever heard of a party giving up power? Now that's a conspiracy.

It's called Dialectics and is a subtle two-party-that-is-actually-one-party dictatorship. They even control the media so that we never question it. It's a lot more effective than what they have in China.