That's where the whole discussion of a 3rd party candidate becomes relevant. Politicians are concerned about keeping their seat above all else and so they play the numbers game to skew it in their favor. One interesting thing I've seen in the news lately is the process of Gerrymandering where districts are redrawn in order to pack certain types of voters together in order to control and predict elections more easily. Take a look at these districts and tell me if they seem reasonable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illinois_District_4_2004.p... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IL17_109.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

I'm all about having a third (fourth, fifth) party. And I bet you that when Ron Paul loses the primary, he'll be so heavily persuaded to run as an independent that he just might do it. If that happens he has my vote. I'd really hate to see the EPA go under his watch but that'll probably happen anyway. At least he'll try to get rid of the Fed.

On a side note - living in Canada for that past 4 years has been a real eye opener as to how things could be different. There are roughly 5 parties that all have a fairly strong voice, but what's interesting is how that works at the provincial level where certain parties gain support in some places but don't in others. In Vancouver, the Green party just won a seat (the first in Canadian history I think) because their platform is more sympathetic to British Columbians. Of course Le Bloc Party can only keep power inside Quebec so they can't do shit in the west. I think that if each state in the U.S. starting introducing parties particular to their concerns, then the senate and therefore the country could have a much more interesting and nuanced discussion.