>Remember Ross Perot and his "Reform" party? They got some pub. back in the early 90's due their respectable showing during the primaries. But they ran out of steam I think because while Perot is a great business man, he was a bad politician. No one took him very serious and his choice for his running mate was an odd choice odd.

The point here is that he's just another rich guy who could buy publicity. Not that he knew exactly what to do with it.

I think what is missing here is the guaranteed air time for all the parties, such as exists in many European countries (Serbia included). Anyone can buy advertising time on any commercial TV or radio station (provided they're a registered political party), but the thirty to ninety minutes is guaranteed on the state TV to any party which is on the ballots. And equal time at that - the amount of time depends on which elections, not which party is it. The state TV is a public service, paid from tax or (state-enforced) subscription, and only partially by commercials. This also means that its board of directors is appointed by the Parliament, or one of its committees.

Such a public service doesn't seem to exist here. I don't know whether PBS counts; and if it does, I haven't seen them give a chance to each political party at equal terms. Not that I'm watching PBS much... only BBC news.