>In other words, most third-party voters are basically not seriously
>interested in politics -- they vote on whims. (To be fair, a lot of
>major party voters do, too.)
It might turn out to be whimsical to take a long term strategic view. But if everyone gives up on the possibility of reform, then failure to achieve any reform is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Success for third parties in the US depends on electoral reform, but of course it follows electoral reform is clearly contrary to the interests of the dominant political parties. It would destroy their monopoly on power. But while they have the monopoly on power, they are the only ones who can effect the change, so they have to be forced to act against their own interests.
This is not going to be easy, clearly the only way to make it happen is to make it even more punishing for them not to support electoral reform and the Nader/green strategy of taking enough votes away from the Democrats so that keep losing and they eventually settle on a preferential voting system as the lesser of the two evils is the correct one.
It may seem a bit whimsical to you, but have you got a better strategy to offer, or are you rather advocating acquiescence to the current state of affairs? That is to say abject surrender? Is this what you would call being seriously interested in politics?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas