Of course, I agree. But the question then becomes:

If we're just going with the flow on this one, WHEN do we start the fight? Electoral reform is the only way to insure a true democratic representation. It's the only way that the people will truly be represented. I don't see why part of our energy shouldn't be directed at keeping the party we ARE going to be supporting "honest".

I think we need to look at the situation on two levels-1) the present situation 2) the future.

The present situation is that there really are only 2 candidates - with a realistic chance of getting elected "2 Evils". I personally believe no matter how unmotivated I am by both parties Kerry and Edwards are the lesser of 2 Evils. There are too many mandates in Bush's agenda that I vermantly oppose. Although I don't agree with Kerry the balance tips his way (slightly).

The future-we need to push for electoral reform in this country and bring in broader representation. This is a battle that will take many many years, but needs to be fought.

voting for the lesser of 2 evils guarantees nothing but evil. either we're supporting a democratic process or we're not. if the lesser of two evils wants votes, they should go out and earn them and stop having their candidate's wife be the realest person in the race.

I find it amazing that it took this report to tell the President what an episode of "24" could have. Why did it take something as drastic as 9/11 to indicate that there should be a counter terrorist agency?

I agree - but until that day vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

Well, that's where I feel 90% of us are right now. Neither party really speaks for the vast majority of voters nor, as indicated by low voter turnout, do they seem intent on changing that trend. Instituting something like proportional representation sounds great, but I'm not exactly sure how that would pan out in the US. Most people can't even seem to grasp the concept of a 3rd Party candidate let alone having multiple parties running things. I'd much rather see some serious campaign reform to break down some of the barriers that 3rd (and potential 4th Party) candidates face in even getting funding and access to ballots in the various States. Some of our greatest Presidents were 3rd Party Candidates and we're sure as **** not going to have any great Presidents from either of these two clown camps any time soon.

Proportional representation in it's simplest form (there are many variations) is where any number of parties run with candidates at an election. Say parliment has 100 seats then the percentage of votes that are won go to that party i.e. Democrats win 40 seats, Republicans 20 seats, Green Party 10 seats, Socialists 10 seats, Reform Party 5 seats, Monster Raving Looney Party 2 seats etc etc. The majority needed to rule is 51% of the house-so a coalition needs to be formed by the initially biggest party that would be in this example the Dems with other potential partners. There are however drawbacks here too. I do however feel that the true diversity of this country is not represented by either parties as they both look and sound pretty much the same.

Hmmm...very intersting. Go on... Are you talking about government where the actual bodies (House of Rep., Senate, etc.) are made up to reflect the population they're governing over?

Agreed The Electoral College has to go, my question is can America get with proportional representation ? The country is certainly diverse enough to warrant it.

Agreed. However, one instance of "meddling" doesn't constitute a "history" of corrupt political outcomes. Was there some fishy business in Florida in 2000? You're **** right there was. If anything, the whole situation pointed out one thing to me. The system of the Electoral College has to go or seriously be re-evaluated. Popular vote seems to be the only way to ensure that each vote counts equally in all 50 States. Was I "satisfied with how the outcome of the last election was settled?" Can't say I would have been more excited to see Al Gore limp through 4 years any more than I am watching George W. Bush fumble this country into a downward spiral. That decision in 2000, just as the one facing us all in November, is/was still picking the lesser of two evils and that's not much of a choice at all.

I am responding strictly to elections and the role of outside observers. You agree that 2000 election was a debacle, but it was ultimately Supreme Court in this country that decided the final outcome. I also hope they won't be involved in the outcome of 2004 election. One has to also look at who was sitting on the court and also who they were appointed by. Outside observers are only brought into a country for elections when there is a history of "meddling in the process" by one or two of the party's running. Or in the example of developing nations when they are setting up democratic elections for the first time. I also think it is a matter of whether you are satisfied with how the outcome of the last election was settled-as to me there was clearly "meddling in the process". Florida was an example of that. I take democracy and the right to vote very seriously, it needs to be protected at all costs.