>>I know you are just being practical. Its really about you or this poll, just the general notion that the One-Party system (because there really is no significant difference between them) continues because the media and voters insist on ignoring the candidates who raise real issues.<<

There are over 200 people registered with the FEC as presidential candidates for the election Tuesday. To say that there is really no significant difference between the two major parties is a statement based in cynicism or far radical thinking.

>>I was poking around a found a link from Ralph Naders site (I do not support him). The link is to a editorial opinion where the author suggests that if Mussolini was running on the Democratic ticket, and Hitler on the Repiblican ticket, and Ralph Nader for the Green Party, most voters would vote for Mussolini because he is the lesser of two evils. He is probably right.<<

Cynicism AND way radical thinking....

>>Recent Libertarian campaign literature which I received recounted a story in which a major newspaper was running daily or weekly poll results showing the percentages of voters who said they wouldvote for Gore, Bush, Buchanan, and Nader. When the Libertarians called them to point out the Harry Browne was running neck and neck with Buchanan and suggested that Browne warranted as much coverage as Buchanan, the response they had was to drop Buchanan and Nader from their coverage. That is the media would rather drop those candidates than acknowledge the Libertarian Candidate.<<

....your guy got dropped. Harry Browne has a bunch of great ideas for our country, but he can't get elected. I have the utmost respect for people who vote their conscience. At the same time, I've gotta ask WHY you basically waste a vote? You've already stated that you think this is a one-party system. Do you REALLY believe that a vote for Gore is the same as a vote for Bush?!?

>>Of course Buchanan and Nader although they are technically running on third party tickets, are in reality not any different from the other candidates. Sure they are both at the opposites extremes of the modern One-Party ideology, but they share the same belief as to the fundamental nature of government.<<

We have a fundamental nature of how our government is run, and it is based on our constitution. It makes for both pretty good reading and is the best platform for treating a nation that I know of.

>>So we end up with the self-fulfilling prophecy, the media ignores the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Monarchists, and all the others denying them the chance to be heard, voters won't vote for these parties because they know that they can't win because they have no media exposure. The media sees that these parties don't attract votes and so they ignore them. . . . <<

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want (as long as it doesn't harm someone else, like yelling "fire" in a crowded place). You can say what you want, but you can't FORCE people to listen to you, nor can you force media outlets to be your hydrant. THAT is the bottom line! The general public doesn't care, nor do they take the time to seek out alternative voices in the political system at a high level.

Watch FNC, Fox News Channel. They interview candidates like Harry Browne.

Bob