The day an independent candidate raises $380 million dollars, unfortunately.. is the day they'll win. Otherwise their names never become known in time. Also, they have to have written signatures to be on state ballots, which is also absurd, but a sad reality.

I am not saying these SHOULD be what it takes to win as an Independent, I am saying that sadly they will need to become more vocal, raise more money, and get national media attention... Grassroot campaigns are growing, but in general they will not result in a "V" on election day.

They will never win as long as there are people who feel like they HAVE to vote for one with a "D" or an "R" next to their names.

After looking into both Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin, I am going to vote for Bob Barr. I know that I've stated in the past that I'm going to write in Ron Paul, but that's not nearly as realistic as voting for an actual candidate. Dr. Paul most likely wouldn't even accept if he were to win (by some miracle).

Of the two candidates, Barr or Baldwin, I decided that Bob Barr is the one that is most in line with my idea of what I want in a President. In addition to that reason, Chuck Baldwin is a minister. A man, or woman, that has devoted his, or her, life to God is too engaged in one particular religion to truly be objective. Personally, I feel that a religious person as President is a good thing, it means that they believe in something larger than themselves. That's something that I think is rare in Washington these days.

And for some reason, they will never win...

I have considered voting for an Independent candidate, but nobody here is says they are going to, can name one independent candidate they support or why... Other than, they don't Obama or McCain, which is hardly about the issues.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.

And what did I say that didnt make sense?

As long as I vote period, I can complain about the choices made for the next 4 years by any of the candidates who get elected. Voting independent doesn't giving me any less right and your assumption of such darrick_04 goes to prove the limitation in your thinking and why we are stuck with only two parties.

I hate that we only have two realistic choices, but since I want to complain for the next four years, I will vote for one of the two choices. ;) As we all know, I certainly did not vote party line in the Presidential primaries, and I didn't vote party line for every candidate in 2004, or 2006...

I vote for Republican Congressman Ron Paul, who doesn't endorse the Republican nominee ;)

The primary reason for the two party system, I think, is if we had multi-party elections we would have winners who only had maybe 25-30% of the vote, maybe less, and this would greatly inhibit their ability to function since maybe 75% plus didn't want them.

I reissue my suggestion from my prior blog. Do away with party labels and the primary system and let all who want to run and can qualify run in a "preleminary" election in Aug. and the two top vote getters run in the general election in Nov. thus assuring a winner with 50% or more of the vote.

This can be done within the constitutional requirements re the electoral college or some other system seeking to assure thinly populated states had a voice in the outcome.

To be fair, the poll question had to do with whether people vote based on the party or the candidate.

No, the two major parties aren't the only choices. But for the purposes of this particular poll question, it would be hard to vote a straight Libertarian party ticket -- for example -- unless there's a Libertarian running for each and every contested office in a partisan election. And often, third-party candidates run in Tennessee as independents, meaning their party affiliation isn't even listed on the Tennessee ballot. So I don't think it was unfair to word that particular question based on the two-party system. The specific behavior about which I was asking relates most directly to those two parties.