Wait, wasn't it you that posted a long while ago a video explaining why multiple parties ends in a two-party system anyway? I think we came to the conclusion that a lottery for the presidency would be best.
In simple majority rule systems (like the american presidency), the trend is to drift towards a two-party system where the two parties have roughly the same political line, assuming every voter will vote for the one of the two big parties which is closer to their own opinion, and never consider third party alternatives. This is exactly why such a system is dysfunctional. Too many people try to "vote tactically" by avoiding independent parties that better reflect their opinions for the profit of one of the big two, on the basis that independent parties "will never win". This is the big, critical flaw of majority rule voting. Of course, if you don't do it the other big party might come into power and you would hate it even more than if the good big party came into power, but essentially you hate both.
So here is my advice for you disgruntled americans : a vote of the Democrats or for the Republicans is a wasted vote. You think that vote will prevent the lizardman from the other party to become president, but if you win, you will end up with a lizardman as president anyway, and you will hate it. In an election, you don't "win" if the party you voted for wins. You only win if the policies are to your liking. A vote for the losers has much more power than a vote for the winners, because it conveys information. It says that you are not happy with whatever the winners are doing. You have to understand that there is much more to your vote than just deciding who happens to become president. You don't care who the president is, but you care about what he does, and there's no better way to change that than to make his majority as small as possible, and the party that actually reflects your own opinions as powerful as possible.
