DaveO wrote:

[I]t [the two-party system] has served us fairly well for over two hundred years. I don't see a third party becoming viable for the reasons referred to in my earlier post.

which were:

It's also the reason that a third party historically stands no chance: As soon as a third party looks like it has what might be a popular program, the major parties steal the issue and leave the newcomer sucking its thumb.

Hmm, unless I'm DEEPLY mistaken, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans existed at the time of the founding of the US. Doesn't that imply that ... they started out as third-parties? And that ... this implies that third-parties most definitely DO have a chance? Perhaps for a third-party to have a chance one would have to have a level playing field.

IMO (I don't have humble ones), the idea that 'third-parties don't have a chance' is an implicit admission that the political field here in the States is most distinctly NOT level. Note northfolk/al cholger's comments a couple of posts back.

BB,
NightWing