Only around 50% or less
 

...of eligible voters actually vote in any election...be it city...county...state or federal elections. I for one think that a non vote is in fact a vote...as the those that do not vote...simply do not care which nominee is elected or which party takes control. I think many people view the two major party nominees as not being that far apart on many if not most of the issues and apply the same thinking to the two major parties. In addition most of the nominees either cannot or will not even try to accomplish what they promise during there run for election and people are aware of this...so their vote becomes a no vote.

BTW...on C-Span I have watched the other fiteen or twenty candidates for the Presidency (that never get a mention in mainstream media) debate on C-Span. People tend to forget that there are multiple parties other than the two major parties.

There are other parties and good parties at that. Problem is that the system is rigged for the two parties and the rest are just pointless.

Our elections are about as free as Russias.

I do not think that the system is rigged for the two major parties. To me it is just that the minor parties simply cannot raise the money to get the public attention that the two major parties can raise. In the case of Ross Perot...a multi billionaire...he had the money to get attention but basically turned out to be on the nutty side. If the funding to run was changed (which apparently it will not because of a previous Supreme Court ruling) it would level the playing field...but until then the minor parties will remain in the foreground. At least until another extemely wealthy person decides to run in one of the minor parties...and not turn out to be a kook...like Ross Perot was.

It's nearly impossible for an independent to get on the ballot in all the states. Perot was barely able to do it, and that is with billions of dollars behind him. After 1992, they changed many of the election laws to make it harder to get on the ballots outside of the two parties.

Besides that, it's impossible to get into the public debates on TV. They made rules after the election to stop that as well. Heck, we don't even let candidates in a person's own party participate in the events if they don't fit the network's agenda. In 1996, Dole and Clinton refused to debate with Perot and thus banned him from participating.

And what made Ross Perot such a "kook"? He was for balancing the budget, protecting the environment, and against NAFTA. Over a decade later and people already talk about how Perot was right about all these issues before they even became issues. He was an isolationist who warned of the consequences of butting our noses in other people's business. He basically saw the shitstorm coming our way over a decade ago. Not sure how that makes him a "kook".