Well, it certainly wasn't originally designed this way. It's the result of $$$$$$$$$$ jumping into the equation with both feet -- and a sledgehammer.

Our debates theoretically include other parties... but only when those parties garner X% of nationwide support in the primaries. This happened most notably in '92 when Perot and Bush and Clinton debated together. Far more commonly, by the time the debates happen -- usually just a couple months before the election -- those other parties are usually left so far behind as to be non-entities and they're not invited.

But yes, you're right... it's stacked and the 2 parties have no interest in changing that. For this to change, it's going to take a convergence of several things, starting with the public feeling absolute venom toward one or both parties as it was in '92 and the general antipathy toward Bush.

Then, someone with a high enough profile would have to split off to start a new party or join an existing one. The media would have no choice but to cover this; the question would be if they can be complicit, in that they'll need to portray this person the "right" way. People (and corporations) with money would need to see this person -- and their party -- as being serious and having a legitimate chance. But it's gotta be the right person. Almost perfect... unassailable character, popular, patient, good humor, nice teeth (j/k, but as long as we're wishing!)

Again, at the lower levels you're far more apt to see this. People just don't pay enough attention to the "smaller" races. The top levels are far more difficult to penetrate. But Mike is right when he says that the way to do it is to vote the "smaller" offices in as 3rd parties. Then, people won't be so freaked out by the idea of having a 3rd party President. That'll take some time, and several election cycles, but it could work.

As far as the other parties... there's loads of 'em. To say that most are viewed as fringe is putting it way too kindly (e.g. Lyndon LaRouche ran a Presidential campaign from his jail cell a few times). I know we have rules for creating a political party... how many of them are laws and how strict they are I have no idea. I do know that some of the rules have to do with fundraising because we're always hearing about how candidates occasionally fracture one or two of the rules (now where's that damn sarcasm emoticon when you really need it)



>As an outsider looking in, the system is stacked against that eventuality. In fact I'd say it's designed to preclude it.
>You do have other parties already, but where are they in debates, in the press, in recognition in laws/rules/customs. Can people in the U.S. be registered Reform or registered Libertarian or a registered Communist?
>I'd say the "other" parties are basically tolerated so as to give the illusion that you have an open system where everyone has a chance at being elected when in fact they have no chance by virtue of the big two's ingrainedness.