[legion]

I was taught in high-school history that the two-party system (Democratic-Republicans and Whigs initially) was intentionally established to break down state-centered politics. In other words, it was believed at the birth of this country that each state would have its own candidate for president, and the state with the biggest population would always get their man in office.

If that was the purpose of the two-party system, it has certainly outlived it. It has probably also outlived any usefulness to the country. Our current two parties pick divisive issues that 90% of the population doesn't really care about, and rallies the hard-core around them (gun control and abortion come to mind).

Unfortunately, our two parties have successfully erected significant barriers to the political process. In Illinois, a third-party candidate has to collect a number of signatures equal to something like 20% of all elgible voters in the district they are running from--when often fewer than 20% show up to vote. Candidates from "established" parties are exempt from this requirement. Further, if I sign a petition for a Green Party candidate, I'm barred from voting in a primary for Republicans or Democrats. (I'm paraphrasing the law based on my understanding--this statement is designed to intentionally prevent Rodeo from parsing what I've typed and steering this discussion off course.)