Just watched this on PBS: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>CRASHING THE PARTIES 2004<br>†The 2004 presidential election is expected to be one of the closest in history, with the outcome possibly influenced by so-called "spoilers" on the sidelines. Meet America's third party candidates, who demand that voters have alternative choices to the Democrats and Republicans. (Stereo )<p><hr></blockquote><p>And it reinforced my beliefs in voting outside the two-party system. Nothing is going to change unless you make a choice, not a concession; if your true choice is one of the two parties, so be itóbut don't waste a vote on them any more if they are not who you want. Let's put it this way, my vote for a third party candidate is not throwing my vote away because they "can't win," it's using my vote to encourage outside candidates to continue fighting to gain a voice and an influence. <br><br>As one (albeit somewhat weak) metaphor one of the Libertarian candidates used put it: If you were in prison and you were given a 50% chance of being put to death by injection, 45% chance of being put to death by electrocution and a 5% chance of release, you wouldn't avoid life because your chances were slim... And voting for the same politics-as-usual candidates is the same as political suicide. <br><br>So who was presented?<br><br>Michael Badnarik, Libertarian http://www.badnarik.org/<br>Ralph Nader, Independent http://www.votenader.org<br>Michael Peroutka, Constitution http://www.peroutka2004.com/<br>and David Cobb, Green http://www.votecobb.org/<br><br><br>