[dragonwriter]

> The problem is that no one chooses an alternative candidate who doesn't belong to one of the major two parties.

No, the problem is that we don't have an electoral system that makes it rational to choose such a candidate without reasonable basis to believe lots of other people will (choose the same candidate, not just any non-major-party candidate).

The symptom of that problem is that nearly no one chooses an alternative candidate.

[drivingmenuts]

The major parties (by failure to commit to a solid platform) are easier to agree with than the odd alternate candidate who may have a solid platform, but is only in agreement with a small percentage of voters.

More concretely, the Paul family might one or two things I agree with, but it's the other 999 things they believe in that I can't stand, thus I can't vote for them so much as against them.

[dragonwriter]

You don't really see vague umbrella parties without clear agendas as much in systems which have more effective electoral systems than the US's FPTP system. In an FPTP system, such parties are natural, since once you have established a position as a major party, you can win by the other side being disliked more than you, even if you aren't people's first choice (because the incentives in the electoral system are to vote for the least offensive of the major parties.)

[chaostheory]

> No, the problem is that we don't have an electoral system

I'm not just talking about the presidency... or am I missing something?

[dragonwriter]

> I'm not just talking about the presidency...

Neither am I. In fact, I'm mostly talking about legislative elections, where the use of the first-past-the-post elections in single-member districts produces both duopoly and about as unrepresentative of a legislature as you can get in a system which is even superficially democratically accountable.

People like to focus on the electoral college, but that's not really the main problem in the electoral system in the US.