Originally Posted by kane

Do a little more reading on that California election. First, there were a ton of declared candidates for the primary, but when it came to election day there were only two options on the ballot and they were both Democrats. Check out this

https://ballotpedia.org/United_State...lifornia,_2016

It shows you who the primary candidates were and then who the final general election candidates were. California also has semi-closed primary elections. In that state different parties choose if they want people registered as independents to be able to vote in their primary. The Democrats allow it, but the Republicans don't. So, if I lived in that state, the only people I could have voted for during the primaries were the Democrats. So, basically, if you are a registered independent in that state you have very little say in who the final candidates on the ballot are and then, in this case, both candidates were Democrats and both were career politicians.

Also, you are correct about people only seeing two names even if there are more on the ballot. At least 25% of the country will vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is and another 25% will vote Republican no matter what. Getting those people to vote for anyone but their party is going to be near impossible.

I hear what you are saying, but the way the system has been built up over the last several decades it will be near impossible to change it without someone or some group making a big splash. It would take someone, say like Mark Cuban or any other billionaire, to run, fund their own campaign and create a new party or not affiliate with any party. If he wins (or even does decenly well) that momentum can be used to win elections at the state and local level. Ross Perot almost did it with his Reform Party, but then he showed himself to be a crazy person and the party was taken over by crazy people.