>>>>>>>>>>>>>Devil's advocate is your way of living ;-) I remember you saying you didn't vote for Obama and took it to mean you voted for McCain. Maybe you threw your vote away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>C'mon Mike, everyone's vote is their own...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I wasn't suggesting otherwise. It's just that voting for someone other than the two serious candidates is, in fact, throwing your vote away.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not if a majority does it, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Good point. And when was the last time that happened?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I have my utopian moments but a change in our two party system isn't one of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I didn't mean I dislike the idea. I just don't consider it at all likely. The two party system is deeply entrenched here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And I suppose it's likely to stay that way unless you change from a 'first past the post' voting system......
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First past the post?
>>>>>
>>>>>Where the guy with the most votes wins. Period. I think that tends to lead to a two-party system even when it didn't start out that way - based on the logic you mentioned earlier that voting for a middle-ground candidate is seen as a wasted vote.
>>>>
>>>>But that's the thing, Viv. Third party candidates are not even perceived as middle ground. They are perceived as fringe candidates.
>>>
>>>By 'fringe' do you mean that their politics *do* cover the middle-ground but they have little chance of success? If so that supports my point - changing to a preferential voting system would probably see their proportion of the vote increase sharply. The possible downside being that it's more likely that neither main party would have an over-all majority.
>>>
>>>If, OTOH, you mean that a fringe candidate is seen as being 'left of left' or 'right of right' then that would imply that there's not much of an idealogical gap between the two main parties in the first place. Arguments here lead me to believe that that is not the general perception :-}
>>
>>Generally their positions are outside the mainstream one way or the other. The Tea Party certainly is.
>>
>>IMO Sarah Palin, who spoke at their recent convention with notes written on her hand, is their embodiment. Mad as hell and not all that bright.
>
>I certainly don't see Sarah Palin as a viable candidate (and she is not even a member of the Tea Party as far as I know) but what in the Tea Party's position is outside the mainstream?

Unhinged anger. Wanting to burn it all down and go back to colonial days.

Maybe Sarah isn't a member. She was happy to take $100,000 of their money for a speech at the convention.