nightsilver,
I agree with much of what you said, and I hadn't thought of the possibility I was contributing to a stifling mentality that perpetuated a shut down of 3 rd. parties.
However, the election will go to the (basically) majority vote winner, not be split into 2 months rules by 1 party, 4 months rule by and 2nd. party, and 6 months rule by a 3rd.
It's winner take all.
I haven't taken game theory, but my guess is that the most logical choice in that situation is to pick the side most likely to give you returns you desire. Sort of like buying a car and selecting the model offering the most features you desire.
There certainly are countries that run multiparty government, or have multiparty elections, but aren't they the ones on the news always desolving and reforming.
In a winner take all situation, I'd best describe the situation like an accountant would analyze probable returns on investment, by using a decision tree.
Option Probability Value Anticipated return
Dem 60% 200 120
Reb 40% 300 120
Lib 1% 600 6
I'm assuming the Lib is most valuable to you, followed by Rep. and Dem. least. If this were money, that IS the most logical way to assess the options. Throw in emotions, and it a whole other ball park not governed by just logic.
And nightsilver, I'm really not trying to put you or your position down.
But I am trying to have a discussion on these things. In the past few years, we've lost the ability to have civil debates without flying at each other in rage. I'd like to return to the point where civil debates are possible.
I like to consider '08 in terms of a logical "Probable Return on Investment" paradign to use in a winner take all country.
Friends?
PS This word processor screwed up by table I used above. The values are supposed to be lined up under the headings above. Opps