Why can't this country have a third party to actually win an election?
146186
Having only two powerful parties helps politicians keep the illusion that if you don't support the party in office, you have to support the main party in the opposition. For example, the illusion now (but of course not the truth) is that the only way not to be a Republican, is to be a Democrat.\n\nLittle by little, many people will stop supporting Bush and will turn to the Democrats. And when most people shift, the Democrats will win again.\n\nBut in the shifting, some people don't just go from one party to the other. They go to third parties. One of them will eventually grow big enough to substitute for one of the two main parties, and the two-party political system will be kept, only that now, with a different pair of parties.
270915
They already are, but it takes a long time for alternate parties to gain the momentum required to win higher offices.  There are many local and state offices being filled by members of alternative parties.  Ocassionally a third party candidate manages to get the majority of votes for a congressional seat.  It will be a long time before we see a third party president.
507326
The only way I see americans voting someone other than the two leading parties is if a third party were to break away from one of the major parties. It's happened before. The Republican party was started from the Whig party. I could see \nAmericans voting for a third party who had a platform of ridding the government of rampant corruption and getting us out of Iraq.
328162
It would be nice, but no. These two parties are too powerful and have too much money for a third party to compete. They will try, as they have in the past, but they won't succeed. I don't like to believe that any vote is "wasted" but I do believe that voting for the third party just increases the chances of getting someone like Bush in office again. I find it apalling that anyone could still support this man or the Republican party after all they have done to damage our country.\n\nI have voted for a third party in the past, but as I've grown older I realize that it just did more damage than good, so I will remain a democrat. The only way I would vote for a 3rd party again would be if I saw (through the polls) that the person running clearly had a chance, and if they ran on a platform I could really support.\n\nBut don't ever not vote. Don't ever believe that your vote doesn't count. We have a responsibility to vote for the person we believe should be in office, even if you do vote for a third party candidate.
1063013
Two party systems are inherently more stable than those with more parties, because the way to get more votes is always to be more centrist.  The votes that are being fought over are those who agree with some of what one party says and some of the other.  \nMultiple party systems are more unstable, because the way to get votes is not to appeal to a majority but rather to appeal to a motivated minority.  If there were 10 parties, a party could win with only 15% of the vote--even if the other 85% totally disagree with that parties platform.  This leads to success for racist and nationalist parties, as well as other extreme parties that cater to only one interest.
793458
1.  Because most americans really ARE either a Dem or a Rep.\n\n2.  most countries end up falling into a two party system.  It's certainly better than a one party system, and with too many parties, they end up having to form coalitions to create a majority.  So- basically a two party system kinda' works.  Ya' can't give people too many choices.
857798
Third parties are a bad idea. With a three party system, the winner is usually elected with a less than majority vote. Clinton won in 96 with a majority of people voting against him.
975744
The last couple of decades, it has become that.  You would think, out of 300 million Americans, we would have a better pool of people.  But NO, money has skewed everything to their favor, regardless of party.  I vote for each candidate, even third party ones, based on what they will do for us.  Jesse Ventura proved that third party candidates can win, if people will vote their conscience, not party affiliation.  And some will say he was the lessor of three evils, I'm not from Minnesota, so I don't care about that.  Just using him as an example that third parties CAN win, if we vote for who we want, not because some party says to vote for their candidate.  Then come the scare tactics after that.  All in all, it is up to us Americans to decide our fate.
715016
It's not a third-party issue.\n\nStates allocate electoral college votes, according to the rules set forth by the states. What the third-parties want is irrelevant.\n\nIn fact, the third parties are largely irrelevant given the current system, because the states so massively favor the dominant two parties that it's functionally impossible to elect a third-party candidate. The system is broken, but only those who don't support either of the two major parties seems to care.
957620
The Two-party system barely qualifies as democracy.  At least with a coalition government, everyone gets a chance to voice their opinion, and have some input as to how things are done.
296214
In 48 states out of 50 there is a policy of winner takes all. This the key reason that more than two party system is not possible.
506423
There's no need to "establish" a 3rd Political Party to do these things...There's already one:\n\nTHE CONSTITUTION PARTY\n\nhttp://www.constitutionparty.org/
1004586
No, but, unfortunately, there aren't enough numbers of other parties to effectively change the government.\nOne almost has to side with one or the other, if they want to change anything at all.\nTo affiliate and align themselves with one of the lesser parties, at election times, is basically, no vote at all.  Because the number of supporters isn't there, their candidates stand no chance of winning.\nA lot of people vote for the lesser parties as a matter of principle, but the end result can be a person in office that reflects none of what they stand for.
1050158
we need a new party one that is not a farce like the current ones.a party that actually stands a chance and is not looked upon as a joke vote.unfortunately those with money have all the control so the regular people get screwed.bend over people another election is coming
134610
I have actually long been a fan of a modified parliamentary two-party system. Let me explain. In a parlimentary system, the party that wins the most seats gets what they want...period. The minority party cannot stop them. This would make the winning party COMPLETELY accountable to the voters. They cannot blame failure on anyone, nor can anyone take away their success. \n\nIn many of these systems, the system itself can be paralyzed by the endless array of political parties. For example, in the German elections, the two dominant parties were in intense negotiaions with smaller parties in order to get their person elected prime minister. The result is EXACTLY what we have in the US. All compromise; no one gets what they wanted. Therefore, if you could limit it to two parties, then there would be virtually no squabbling, stalling, blaming, etc.
830397
Then vote for a third party canidate. I'd love to see a third party a real third party rise in this country, that would scare the bajeezus out of the Dems and war mongering Republicans.
90910
It'll never work in our two-party system unfortunately.\nYou will start a party and have a great platform, then next thing you know one of these parties will use it as their own.  It could be worse, however.  We could have a multi-party and have nothting done because these parties are too busy forming allies and enemies...  I know, Blah, Blah, Blah...