I apologize if someone else posted this already, as this is a well-watched video. Personally, I support approval voting on all candidate ballots. Basically, in such a system, as voter may mark as many or as few candidates as he or she likes; for example, in 2000, a hypothetical Florida voter could have marked both Ralph Nader, who she supported, and Al Gore, who she thought had a chance of winning. The votes for each candidate are tallied, and the winner is declared for that county, state, etc. (If no one candidate received 50% plus 1 of the vote, then we could have the current plurality system or have a runoff election a la Georgia or Louisiana.)

This method allows for the best kind of voting, one with effects and one that expresses people's opinions. A voter could vote his conscience, which could be a third-party, _and_ ensure that his honest vote did not help his least-favorite candidate, since he would also vote for the two-party candidate he liked the best. Additionally, we would be able to take an accurate barometer of a particular candidate's popularity, which is especially important in determining eligibility for federal matching funds.

If, after implementing this system, the two parties remain in power...well, that means that the American people _want_ these two somewhat-similar groups the way they are. However, we might surprise ourselves and give a third-party candidate more approval votes than either major party candidate.