I did get off the boat, but it was not yesterday, so I know that in a winner takes all system you need win a majority of votes to get any representation at all. A simple arithmetic calculation shows that in that situation, splitting the votes on one side of the political spectrum is a sure way of handing the victory to the other political spectrum. This is precisely why the so called "third parties" are created ex nihilo in election years by Karl Roves of the US political machine.
The only way to ascertain some minority representation is changing that system to proportional representation - as it is the case of all developed countries but the US. But that is unlikely to happen, because elections are governed by states and that change would have to take place on the state level. That would be tantamount to splitting the vote at the state level, and unless carried simultaneously in all 50states, it would give an upper hand to the party that was a minority in that state. For example, splitting the 27 Florida electoral votes proportionally in 2000 would take away 13-14 votes from Bush. For that reason, both Repugs and Democrats would oppose any effort to establish proportional representation in "their" states (although they would love to see it in the other states) - which creates a sure recipe for a stalemate.
Given that proportional representation is not going to be implemented here any time soon, bipartisan politics is here to stay. In that situation, you can bitch all you want about limited choices, but you have to adjust your strategy to the situation on the ground. Running a "third party" that is arithmetically certain not only to lose, but also to sink a potential ally is either an example of sheer lunacy or a calculated sabotage. Period.
In that situation, any effort that allows people to use electoral politics to express their opinions without going against the logic of the majoritarian system is a good development. Only rigid ideologues unable to make any compromise oppose it.
Wojtek