No, Manny has it wrong, the Bloc and NDP matter here. Not only because of provincial elections (Bloc run Quebec, NDP run the maritimes, Saskatchewan, and used to run B.C), but with the individuals MPs in Ottawa and a minority government in place they get a fair share of say in the federal decisions as well.

First of all I said Federally there are still really two parties....


Also only during Minority govts are those parties relevant outside of a minority govt they are worth nothing. Really if you have a huge majority and the senate on side, you can do whatever you want for 4 years...

Neither is America. Fitting.

Most people don't seem to get that.

I do. I know we don't have a perfect system. The world is unfair.

My view is that it's good to be pragmatic about it, and take actions that can actually have an effect on changing the world. Being too idealistic doesn't always get you what you want, and sometimes it's better to get 50% of something than 100% of nothing.

Marching in a protest parade is not as effective as actually working to get a candidate elected, for instance. Wearing a T-shirt that says "Free Tibet" is not as effective as contributing to Amnesty International. And voting for a third party as a protest vote is not as effective as choosing the lesser of two evils.

In a Swing state that can go either way I agree with you, but in a state that has no chance of changing sides I disagree.

I iive in RI, McCain has no shot at winning there, so if some HIllary fans vote McCain over Obama is not going make enough of a difference, because the popular vote does not matter.

So yes, I do agree with you, but with come caveats.

Good point, I agree. I was indeed speaking of places where a vote really could make a difference (like here in PA).

The Bloc (PQ in Quebec) has not been in power in Quebec since 2003, but your overall point is valid. The Bloc has had a greater impact on national affairs here in Canada than most people think or are willing to acknowledge.

But anyway, back to Obama vs McCain.

This is why there was Nader Trader in 2000. People in states where their vote didn't really make much difference would pledge to vote for Nader if people in swing states would pledge to vote for Gore. Too bad it didn't actually work.

As much as I love a non two party system, I don't ever see it happening.

We would need an insanely popular independent, and even then it would likely just lead to success for them.

Even then, the third party could grow and become the "second party" if that happened. Our system of elections (winner take all) encourages only two parties, because otherwise it would be very hard to get a majority.

In other countries where you get politicians elected on the basis of percentages in the election, that is completely different. (Party A gets 20% of the vote and thus 20% of the people in the House are from that party, for instance).

Yeah that is the big difference, also we have had third parties come out before and replace another party like you said. Really just the Republican party which replaced the Whig party. By the time the Whig party came in existed the Federalist party was pretty much gone.