[sourcery]

Winner-take-all elections mean there can be ONLY two viable, "major" parties. That's a mathematical fact. Third parties, and those who vote for them, hurt their own cause. Taking over one of the major parties from within--by running candidates in the primaries and participating in primary elections--is the only strategy with any reasonable chance of success. How do you think the anti-Constitutionalists got where they are today? Not by forming any third party!

If you don't want to compromise your principles—not even as a tactic of political war—then democracy with winner-take-all elections will not work for you. At all.

[muawiyah]

First past the post (winner take all) is not the only force at work ~ you have to have a single member district.

Indiana used to have multimember districts ~ about 25 different people represented Indianapolis/Marion County ~ and an organized and dedicated group could push through a candidate who had 2.5% popularity.

The courts changed that (the one man one vote thing) and then the legislature changed it permanently.

It was fun ~ HUGE ballots!

This sort of thing was actually quite popular with the Germans and Danes who settled there in the 1850s ~ shame to see that tradition disappear.