I believe that in 1992, Ross Perot won a whoppng 20% of the vote, following the Republicans and Democrats earning 37% and 43% respectfully.

Now, that year I was only 5, but reading up on 20th century politics, Perot supposedly brought in a new perspective on politics (forgive me if I'm wrong, I only know what I've read so far). I think that he would be a good president, or atleast not worse then the presidents US have seen in it's entire history.

Anyhow, my point being is that perhaps Americans are forced into this two party system so much since birth (or immigrating to the country), that any other party in power is almost hard to imagine.

In Canada, where the parlimentary system is set, there are about 4 main parties in the federal level, (The Bloc Quebecois party only garnering votes in Quebec though). While only two have been in power, the minor parties have been in positions to get their concerns heard and addressed.

One problem I have with American politics is that party policies are already set. For example, the Republicans will take a stanch anti-gay policy, while the Democrats will mostly always have a pro-abortion policy. (Just throwing a couple of examples out there)

Now, if someone were Anti-Abortionist, pro-gay, anti-war, pro-corporation type guy, I would have to be forced to choose between two parties that support and conflict my interests and desires.

Apart from Guliani, most politicians in this race stick to the ideal conservative or the ideal liberal idiologies differenciating themselves with only on the method of doing the exact same thing (Building a fence on the US border, stay or don't stay in Iraq, etc).

But I'm no expert in American politics, so may the best dude win and get in office this time.