Shouldn't Talk To Santa Clara?

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Ingles wrote in part-

For federal and state-level races in the U.S. the vote distribution
looks more like a double-peak curve than a standard bell curve, although
this is largely an artifact of FPP elections.  The parties that are
commonly thought of as "centrist" include the Libertarians and Reform
Party (Ross Perot), and rarely win more than one or two percent of the
popular vote (both may be considered "extreme" in some respects, but on
the Liberal-Conservative axis they tend to fall in the middle).  There
are also the far left (Green, Peace & Freedom) and far right (American
Independent) parties, which also rarely collect more than one or two
percent. 
---
D-- It is obviously due to the use of plurality that so called minor parties
currently get a small percentage of the votes.  The pressure to vote for the
lesser of 2 major party (D or R) evils is very strong for most votes.  A  half
way decent reform method will shatter the insincere voting for the D's and
R's.
---
Mr. Ingles wrote more-
Runoff would address this last concern of mine, but would require
partisan primary elections to remain in place.  Otherwise you could have
a situation like:

25% Democrat_A
24% Democrat_B
17% Republican_A
17% Republican_B
17% Republican_C

D- Thanks for a major example demolishing top 2 runoff.  Yet another example
of why I suggest a YES/NO vote and Condorcet number votes.   The general case
is the divided majority problem.   Assuming that the 51 % R folks are united,
they would vote YES for each R and NO on each D.  The 2 D candidates would
lose.  The D voters then would vote in 3rd place for the lesser of the 3 evil
R's.