"Blanche" wrote in message
...
I guess it's going to take a Constitutional amendment (sure, right)
to have the option "None of the above".

It might. I'm not really sure, since to be honest, I've never bothered to
look up what actually defines exactly how we vote.

I mean, yes...the electoral college is from the Constitution, but that's not
the real problem, not as it's used today. If states, for example, allowed
voters to vote for more than one candidate, then a vote for Nader would not
mean (on average) a vote against Kerry, as it does today.

There is ample precedent for alternative voting mechanisms. The main
problem is that the folks who control how we vote are the same folks who
have a vested interest in locking out all of the "third parties". Though,
given how the Democrats claim that Nader screwed up the last election for
them, it may be that they may find that third parties that get popular
enough (and it doesn't take much popularity) are enough of a thorn in their
side that they would be willing to give up their virtual monopoly (shared
with the Republicans, who so far haven't had a similarly disruptive similar
party running with them) on holding office.

One thing's for sure, when you've got one party (the Republicans in this
case) helping fund activities intended to support another party (the
Greens), simply because the more that other party succeeds, the less the
real competition (the Democrats) can succeed, something is really screwed
up.

Pete