As far as two-way races are concerned, does it not strike you as suspicious that at every level of government across the country that the ballot for those offices looks something like this:

Not all races are limited to just two contestants. Some allow for third parties / independents or write-ins to be on the ballot. However with the ballot access laws and campaign finance laws favoring Democrat & Republican parties over all the others, it has not been probable or perhaps even feasible to get an independent or third-party candidate elected to office in most contests despite some exceptions. Certain commentators for the powers that be chide us that third parties and independents diminish or split the vote of the constituencies of either of the two main parties and can enable the other side (the greater evil) to prevail in an election. The fear by either side of being weakened in a particular race is a valid fear that that particular constituency will rail against and hence they also rail against the third parties. In addition we are told that a two-party favoring system provides a mechanism towards a majority decision in which election outcomes will more often reflect the will of most of the people.

After considering all that let's ask ourselves these questions: Is the two-party system really providing the best candidates? Doesn't it cater to a more lackluster, common-denominator seeking party machine? Does it respond to a polarized electorate well? How well does it handle the more centrist or moderate forces and candidates? Does it promote more thought from the electorate, sufficient strategy from contenders or provide indepth debate? How well can it steer the country via elections and then handle governing? Are you still satisfied with its choices and results? Answers to these questions may vary concerning particular periods in our history or with certain elections.

There is a way that can provide better representation and response and is more ethical and deserving of a free country. So again as far as two-way races go, wouldn't it be better if we had a ballot that looked like this:

We see here that these races still have the majority-leaning qualities in outcome. The ballot access and campaign finance laws are reformed to allow for true competition which nixes campaign subsidies. Such reform should be enacted alongside a reasonable primary that concentrates contestants down in some proper manner toward the final ballot. When such a system is the case, we more likely don't have to just settle for lesser evils to prevail in these races as we did earlier in the strictly two-party example. By this system there is no strict two-party, machine-favored structure to contend with. There is more competition and choice towards and in the final ballot. Thus we can expect better response, debates, steering and governing through this system on behalf of the electorate. So what those commentators should really be advocating is a binary system as herein illustrated for situations concerning want of two choices on the final ballot instead of sticking with our strictly two-party favoring system we suffer today. Having to solely reclaim or rejuvenate the subsidized main parties is a false proposition.

We on the other hand do not necessarily advocate keeping all races down to just two final choices for every contest on the ballot. By allowing room for more contenders on the final ballot, issues that otherwise would have been rendered non-effective due to the mutual exclusion by the campaigns of binary candidates could actually bring another candidate to the forefront between the primaries and the general election. This provides more debate and competition. So, like now in some current races and places there could be more than two contenders for office in the general election, say three to four plus a write-in. We think that one write-in slot should be included in every race to allow for some hardship, withdrawal or other significant event occurring between primaries and the general election.

There are then two possible scenarios that come into play to determine the winner. One is where reforms are enacted that allow the more minor candidates to pledge their share of the vote count towards either one of the candidates who have the two highest tallies. This would usually award a majority. The other scenario would be where such reforms were not in place. In fact, we may want to consider using this other determination even when going all the way back to the strict two-party favored system we suffer now. So in districts where majorities are not prerequisite, we would entail setting as criteria that the victor not only must attain the highest vote count but also that it be at least some threshold plurality equal to or greater than 40% (exact percentage to be determined by local authorities). Should none of the candidates get above the threshold plurality, then there would be runoffs to make the final determination between the two highest candidates or from amongst all ties in some fashion. We assume runoffs for other cases not fitting within these parameters or when applicable if the methods here mentioned are not adopted.

Whether a general election incorporates the binary system, the minor candidate shares pledging protocol, typical majority prerequisite or uses plurality threshold, an appreciable victor can be determined for races which will more likely reflect the electorate. In a similar vain, our Bicameral Electoral College plank allows for the more minor presidential candidates' electors to have share and ability to lean towards the better of two or perhaps eventually determine the two possible leading presidential candidates. Thus, limiting ourselves to a strict two-party structure in the presidential elections is not necessary to achieve an electoral college majority.

So far we have discussed these election structures within the current voting regimen of casting one vote for a particular candidate in a particular race on the ballot. When and wherever range voting would be incorporated, its components would supercede or act alongside or within the binary method or upon all candidates beyond binary where applicable and in proper manner.

Now we ask the following questions: Has pickling between Democrat and Republican in virtually all offices led our country down the right path? Will doing so again really provide the full solutions needed to address the preservation of our nation? Won't they yet again run one way and govern in another? For which will it be more effective or rewarding: Battling the well-funded establishment of the two parties or instead battling your local elections board for access towards more grassroots candidates? In the time left before the next election is it more profitable to settle for battling the establishment or radicals in either party while eventually still having to suffer their lackluster moderates? With the tea parties and other such activity, isn't now a great time for our elections to phase in the more grassroots candidates? Aren't you tired of solely playing the strict two-party shuffle again and again at all levels?

It should now be more apparent that a strict two-party system is more prone to forcing votes from the public towards certain established candidates. In contrast, the herein described open, competitive and concentrating multi-party system more aptly provides a truer selection of particular candidates at the behest of the voters. To further this cause, the more similar third-parties should not waste time, money and effort competing against each other in the same constituencies. Instead, they should agree to hold conference(s) in order to divvy up which precincts, districts, counties or states they will operate in. Perhaps they can do such in checkerboard fashion or take hold in certain regions or areas. Another option is for one party to agree to run candidates in every other election where the other party runs candidates in between.

In closing we observe that in the new binary slate above, we included some Democrats and Republicans. Will it be possible to have them still exist as players? Perhaps it will if they actually reform and do not hold total power to themselves. However, if they continue to hog the slate then should the country collapse it will be less likely that both parties will have as much if any share of the electorate when the populace finally decides to cast off the establishment. Both parties as it is are in some danger of extinction with what has been going on already. Making room for true ballot reform may bring forth some electoral forgiveness and also may act to streamline and reform those parties towards a better representation on behalf of some core demographic for each. Democrats and Republicans both should relinquish from total domination, otherwise they must be politically exterminated.