Indeed, but sometimes you have to bite the bullet, too. In 2000 Nader hurt Greens badly with their liberal base, but Obama is brutalizing Democrats with them now, because he ran as a populist but has consistently governed (to the extent he HAS governed) as the same old Washington insiders he claimed to oppose. Again I cite polling that as many people thought the healthcare law was too LITTLE as thought it too much; regardless of whether you support public healthcare, a lot of people voted for Obama because he promised it to them, and they (we) feel cheated at least as much by him as by Republicans who at least ADMITTED their opposition.

I agree you have to start locally; First Past the Post allows no alternative, because building a series of local political infrastructures is the only way to get something you can knit together into a national infrastructure. You need the candidates, the campaign workers, the donors and the platform planks; all the things Perot didn't have a decade ago. Unfortunately, part of the problem is that "grassroots organization" can often be a contradiction in terms; as soon as you start grouping and structuring things the bureaucrats and power brokers try to take control of the emerging system that lends itself to that. Ultimately, however, the old saw is really true: The solution to the problems of democracy is more democracy, and a general level of awareness and involvement with the process will prevent the lunatics running the asylum. The real challenge is how everyone can be that aware and involved with the political process itself and still get to work every day to put food on the table.

Yet the people are very disgusted with the status quo right now, and polling on both parties, their candidates and their officeholders consistently reflect that. Strong majorities want a combination of tax hikes and spending reduction to solve the debt problem (which is only a crisis because we won't address it; again, 67% of the debt we owe is to the SS trust fund because for decades we borrowed from it rather than--cut spending and raise taxes, of course). Things are reaching a critical mass, and the debt ceiling could be what unleashes the flood if they don't find a solution (that Republicans and Democrats are distantly aware of the discontent is the only reason they still resolve impasses they let reach crisis level: They don't want to face the reckoning they'll unleash otherwise). However, most of the "solutions" they find these days are just ways for both parties to save face with voters without actually accomplishing anything, which is why the condition of the country has deteriorated so far, to the point voters are increasingly unwilling to tolerate further decline.

I would say IRV is the first step to fixing the problem, because it would give people a chance to vote their conscience and choose real alternatives without guaranteeing their political opponents victory. Instant Runoffs are DESIGNED to avoid the very problem you referenced: Electing a candidate no one wants because the majoritys votes are split between many candidates everyone would prefer. Unfortunately, that's the only reason Republicans and Democrats still get elected, so neither of them want IRV.

Frankly, I don't see a short term solution, unless the ever popular gridlock that's actually a lot of the problem implodes the US government and we start from scratch with neither party. Right now, I'd say the most likely outcome isn't the Tea Party leaving the GOP and giving the Dems default landslides. The most likely outcome, IMHO, is what happened with TRs Progressive Party a century ago: Someone like La Follette leads the NON-Tea Party GOP to the Dems because the Tea Party caucus is SO far right that it 1) has policies the rest of GOP officeholders oppose 2) taints the brand with the more moderate (and rational) general public and 3) makes governing impossible even in a one party environment. If you think it can't happen, remember the people derided as RINOs now are the enduring legacy of TRs Progessive Party nearly a century ago: Republicans so fed up with corporate cronyism they left the party in fact (and sometimes in name) to support Democratic opposition to it. Think about it; the House Speaker is on record that he agrees with and supports the Presidents combined revenue increase/spending cut approach, but can't support it with a VOTE because of the Tea Party. Even when he writes a bill BY HIMSELF it can't pass the chamber HE LEADS until he turns it into CC&B--which makes it DOA anywhere else. Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate are alarmed both by what that forebodes for the nation and what refusing responsibility before voters will mean to their careers.

That's ultimately not good news for "my" side either, because it means we either get more gridlock, or moderate Republicans bolt to give a majority to Democrats who don't represent me, you or the country any more than their new GOP allies do. It worked a century ago because Dems were still a labor and farming party of the little (white) guy; with labor and farmers pretty much hamstrung now they simply support a different corporate faction.

I think we need IVR so we have more than two choices, but I'm not optimistic it'll happen soon because the two choices we have are keenly aware of what would result. People would vote for minor party candidates secure in the knowledge that it wouldn't help a major party candidate they oppose. Worse, those minor party candidates would get ELECTED as a result, and major party officeholders would be forced to negotiate with them to pass legislation, might even (HORROR!) have to vote for legislation FROM minor parties. We'd end up with coalition government practically overnight and no longer be restricted to policies that either serve the Democrats owners or the Republicans. Of course, the disaster for them would be a mercy to the country and everyone else.