[smsm42]

That's because it is exactly the situation. Nobody is "held ransom" by anybody. But voters that think like you - low-information voters that can vote for anybody provided that he is "our guy" because "their guy" is The Devil himself - are exactly the reason why it happens again and again. And will happen until the majority abandons such mentality - which I personally wouldn't expect happening any time soon.

[vacri]

Voters that think like me live in a multipolar democracy that currently has a minority government in power. It's a tacit weakness of the US system that there can only be two viable parties. "If everyone changed and voted for a third person" is not a retort, because it still requires everyone jumping on the same bandwagon to effect a win; it'll just be a different brand of wagon.

[Volpe]

It's a two party system, but the two parties don't have to be the same ones that are their now.

I don't understand the "viable alternative" arguement. You are saying "I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them" <--- Is that what you mean? That seems self defeating.

...

[vacri]

If you had rapid iteration - elections every month - then a tertiary party would have something of a chance. As it stands, the iterations are so slow, that with FPTP voting, the two main parties will just move slightly to diminish the threat - the incumbent edifice carries on.

With preferential voting (or similar), you actually have the realistic probability of more than one party being in power. Here in Australia, the current government is formed from one major party, one minor party, and a couple of independents. It's not just 'mathematically possible', but a plausible outcome. That can't really happen with FPTP voting. Well, it can happen, but it's an oddity - see the current situation in the UK with the lib dems.

"I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them"

The problem here is that by voting for someone whom you slightly prefer, you split the vote in a FPTP system, making them both lose out to the third person you didn't want in. If 60% of the population want a left-wing candidate, and they're split evenly-ish, they'll still lose out to the single right-wing candidate who only has 40%. It sounds self-defeating on paper, but in real terms it's more like self-preservation.

[smsm42]

Two viable parties are plenty enough if they are real parties and not a collection of people that use different-colored jerseys to play the same game. Unfortunately, right now majority of voter will vote for "their guy" almost no matter what, which lets "their guy" very broad license on any bad behavior. If the voters would say "either you put a leash on NSA or we're not voting for you, period" - then things may have been going in different direction. But voters don't do that - if you see, for example, how many voters of party A supported government surveillance when party A is in power and when party B is in power, the difference is depressingly significant. Because if "our guys" do it, it must be good, but if "their guys" do it, it must be bad. That's how we get into such a mess.

[vacri]

Two parties aren't enough by any stretch, given how varied and multi-headed politics are. There are so many different facets and foci, that there's no way you can do a representative bipolar split across them all.

The other problem with systems that settle to two-party systems is that swing voters hold a disproportionate amount of power... which is ironic, given that the swing voters are usually not as politically interested as bloc supporters.

[smsm42]

People do not vote for parties - at least technically - they vote for people.

>>> that swing voters hold a disproportionate amount of power

How is it a bad thing? You say people that actually look at the issues at hand and not just mindlessly pull the lever for "our guy" whoever he is hold "disproportionate amount of power". I say they should hold 100% of the power - or 100% of the voters should be like this. The fact that they aren't is exactly the problem!

>>> given that the swing voters are usually not as politically interested as bloc supporters.

"Politically interested" can mean different thing. If bloc voters' only interest is getting "their guy" in power, and keep him there whatever happens, I don't have any sympathy for such kind of political interest. And if you want to see how well it works for those bloc voters, see how well it worked for voters in Detroit or Chicago, who are constantly voting in crooks and mob men.

[JulianMorrison]

You are missing the fact that you have multipolar primaries.