Why don't Americans vote for a 3rd party candidate?

Because it's hard to convince people that a 3rd-party candidate has a chance of winning instead of just splitting the vote. And many liberals are very sour on the subject after the Nader episode in 2000.

Now, if our electoral system had instant-runoff voting, a 3rd-partier would stand a chance.

Sure, as long as you don't mind the President who only got 34% of the vote.

Wow, THAT is representing the will of the people, now Isn't it!

Here is the problem with third parties. The Democrats and Republicans are so opposite of each other that a third party is guaranteed to be more like one than the other.

Like Big Mam pointed out with Perot. He got 16% back then. I believe it was the best showing EVER for a third party. BUT almost ALL of Perot votes WOULD Have been Bush Sr. votes. So Perot offers an alternative to Bush, and Guaranteed CLINTON the Win.

If the third party is closer to the Number one than the number two, it guarantees victory for number two.

We need to fix the parties, not change the system. The Republicans are trying with the

TEA Party influence, What are the DEMONcrats doing? Getting more communists?

..... It has nothing to do with American smarts or willpower.

The way our Constitution is written, it's a winner take all system. It also benefits a two-party system and dis-favors any more parties. As I recall, we're one of two countries in the industrialized world that does this. That's why you see so many parties in other countries.

There are only two ways to fix it: 1) Change our Constitution, or 2) vote in Instant Runoff Voting on the federal level. To do #1 you need an overwhelming majority of seats in Congress to agree. Good luck with that. To do #2, you'd want to put it in towns across the country, graduate to counties, then states, and finally federal. So you could get the Libertarians and Greens to push that for you.

Oh, I voted for Perot, too.

I think people figure voting third party basically guarantees the person you like LEAST to win. Most people justify it by getting someone that they agree with a little if they vote for the D or R, instead of getting someone they disagree with fully, simply for the sake of voting on Principle.

Political parties have "planks" of policies that they, and their candidate support.

Third parties typically have very incomplete planks - usually missing international relations and diplomacy. That makes most people view them as not serious.

Quite a few voters support their existing party candidates - but the division in government (and public opinion) is preventing either party from legislating their policies.

balloting for the two substantial occasion applicants basically concerns interior the swing states. In some states the occasion getting the electoral votes is already predetermined. The electoral votes in California will flow to the Democrats and the electoral votes in states like Oklahoma or Utah would be going to the Republicans. In those states people can vote for third occasion applicants with out it having any result interior the election. i would be balloting for a third occasion candidate.

Because 3rd parties have a long history of NEVER running a viable candidate.

Despite the abysmal failure of both parties Americans are ignorant enough to still have "faith" in the two party system. The vast majority understand nothing about politics and vote strictly on one issue. They are too dumb to comprehend how things work. In the eyes of (literally) 98% of Americans, voting for a third party is voting for a loser and no self-absorbed, ignorant voter wants to be on the losing side.

A lot of people think that would be the only true solution to our problems, and they are probably right, but there's just not enough of them to actually get someone elected.

I'm not sure if Ron Paul counts. He is a libertarian. Not sure if he counts.