Well, Ross Perot got about 20% of the vote and he was a total nutcase (not to say others currently in office are not!) and you only need 34% to win. I think Bloomberg won't run unless he thinks he can win, The replublican party is terribly hobbled, and the democrats can't get out of their own way to let the republicans lose (for several cycles now).

I think many issues are now at the brink and the American people will rise to the challenge when things get too far out of wack. Until things get to that point, we generally are more concerned with personal matters.

If the people lead, the leaders will follow!

As for influence of individuals, the republicans and democrats don't agree on much, it's a matter of pretending a problem doesn't exist, until someone speaks our to say the emperor (Republicrats) has no clothes. The course this country is on is not sustainable, as the cracks in the facade appear and grow, more and more people will wake up to see how flawed and corrupt the system is. Hopefully it won't be too late, but it may be already.

Bob
>>The problem is that there are too many THIRD parties, however I think the time is ripe for big changes in our government and that Bloomberg could run a real eye opening campaign. The third party candidates have been useful in bringing up issues the Republicats try to avoid, but the ones that stay in to the end with no real chance of winning end up taking votes away from the major candidate closest to their platform.
>
>I meant a VIABLE third (fourth, fifth) party.
>
>And about bringing up issues - what's the average influence of voters on issues where the two parties agree? Do these ever come up for public debate?