Foolestroupe, I'm not exactly sure how that Australian system works, but I've just discovered a web site that attempts to explain it, so I'll go and try to educate myself.

I'm not (yet) sure if this is the way the Australian system works, but I would favor a system of preferential voting, in which a voter can rank the candidates in order of his or her preference. That way, if one listed Nader as #1 and Kerry as #2, if it becomes obvious that Nader is not garnering a plurality*, the vote would automatically shift to Kerry. [And for those of conservative bent who object to my example, were Pat Buchanan (or Robertson) running and if they're coming in well behind, their votes would shift to Bush (assuming that was the next choice of the conservative voter)].

This way, those who prefer a candidate other than the majority party candidate could list the order of their preference with no fear of their vote being "wasted," as happens under the present American system. And the major parties would have to take the minor party candidates and platforms very seriously, otherwise they might suddenly find that they have become a minority party.

Don Firth

*Majority = a candidate has to have over 50% of the vote to win.
Plurality = the candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if it is not a majority (this is the U. S. system).

P. S.: By the way, regarding Martin Gibson—what else would you expect from someone whose role models are Beavis and Butthead?