Stormin Mormon wrote:
Both parties fail to satisfy the American people. The Reps
are doing things like Patriot Act, and the Dems are speeding
us towards socialism. I wonder if any third party has a
chance. Might, sometime soon. I don't feel like a vote for
Reps or Dems does any good. Of course, with electronic
voting, my vote may be totally irrelevant anyway.

The last 3rd party candidate that had a ghost of a chance was Teddy
Roosevelt running on the Bull Moose party in 1912. Roosevelt got 27% of the
vote, putting the Republican, Taft, in 3rd place (23%). Woodrow Wilson won
with 42% of the vote. Had Roosevelt stayed out of the race, the Republican
candidate - Taft - would probably have defeated Wilson.*

If you're dissatisfied with the positions of the two major parties, then
work from WITHIN the party of your choice to change things. Withholding your
vote from the party closest to your position actually makes things worse.

Suppose a number of people feel the Republican party is not conservative
enough and vote for, say, the Libertarian (or simply don't vote at all). The
Democratic candidate stands a better chance of winning and a number, like
Wilson above, will actually win. It's clear to all but these disaffected
voters that a Democrat in office is far worse than a less-than-perfect
Republican.

And, no, withholding your vote won't teach the party a lesson. The "purists"
have been drained off, strengthing the internal power of those to whom the
"purists" object.

Now my first choice for president didn't win last time. But, since I wasn't
on the ballot, I sort of expected that. So what I did was vote for the major
party candidate CLOSEST to me in platform, promises, and policy: Howard
Taft.

----------
* Woodrow Wilson did keep us out of war and help found the forerunner of the
United Nations. Had Taft won, we wouldn't have had such foolishness.
Especially with Roosevelt as Secretary of War.