> and there won't be until we change how we count votes, and your choice of protest is effectively taking what power you do have and throwing it away. You thin

> and there won't be until we change how we count votes, and your choice of protest is effectively taking what power you do have and throwing it away. You think too highly of your 'pragmatism' (my word). Last I checked, we have 20 different choices of fast food burger joints, in nearly every major city. 30+ different choices for cereal. Why not in politics? Why not allow a society of 330,052,960 have more than two choices for someone whom isn't just the leader of our top-ranked nation but also the leader of the free-world. I find it bizarre that people just accept this narrative that we must 'choose the lesser of two evils'. Last I checked, if I had a choice between rat poison or nuclear radiation poisoning, I wouldn't pick one of them. This is called a false dichotomy. Your idea to 'change within' is bizarre. What if we told consumers of McDonalds to 'get a high level status in McD and get that ice cream machine working 24/7'? That's impractical. That's why I quoted pragmatism because it's a false pragmatism. Free agents need to make their choices. Fail at it then try again. But guess what, the politicians will be forced to changed too, when they realize they actually have to have a more substantive approach that meets the needs of it's constituents. Competition is good. Duopolies aren't. Not in politics. Not in the market.