Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires a "two-party system," but votes for third parties are often considered "wasted," since we assume that Democrats and Republicans will continue running the show.  To make our votes "count," we must sometimes hold our noses while reluctantly selecting the "lesser of the evils."  Why are we stuck with this arrangement?
         The current system serves the needs of powerful interests.  Linguistics pioneer and political analyst Noam Chomsky refers to Democrats and Republicans as the "two wings of the Business Party."  They create an illusion of debate in our media, and may indeed disagree on many things.  Crucial basic assumptions, however, are assumed by all as given--like the air we breathe.  This process defines the boundaries of what is thinkable in our society, and those who follow the details of the "debates" are often lulled into assuming the same underlying worldview.
         For instance, there is endless discussion about how best to "grow" the economy, but no one says maybe it's grown enough already.  Another example:  in the days preceding the Persian Gulf "War" (really, more of a "turkey shoot"), major media voices never questioned whether we should wield our might, while there was extensive debate over starving them out ("sanctions") versus blowing them away.  We blew them away.
         The two-party arrangement gives an appearance of vibrant democracy while the philosophies that powerful interests need us to accept are steadily fed to all from birth.  Chomsky says that the dispossessed are generally more insightful about the nature of the system, while more privileged people have some stake in the status quo and are therefore more likely to internalize the values of the ruling class.  Truly independent thinking sometimes requires a difficult (but exciting and liberating!) process of unlearning.  "Killing the TV" can be a vital step.
         The dispossessed are more likely to be non-voters.  "Liberals" and "conservatives" alike decry low voter turnout, identified as "apathy."  I doubt if many non-voters are really "apathetic" about life, their families, their jobs or homes (or lack of them), or the world; they are simply disconnected from the political machine.
         Voter registration and turnout will improve when former non-voters hear
potentially winning candidates expressing something akin to their interests.  This may only happen with the end of domination by the two wings of the Business Party.  I'd like to see the Republican and Democrat parties taken to the Supreme Court and tried for violations of anti-trust and monopoly law, then broken up--as happened with ATT and will probably happen soon with Microsoft.  Monopolizing our government is a far greater crime than dominating phone service or computer software markets.
         Real democracy might improve if we had "proportional representation," which is common in Europe.  If Green, Libertarian, or Natural Law candidates get 2% of the vote, then they should have 2% of the seats in Congress.  Alternative voices could then be heard.  I believe such a change would require a Constitutional Amendment, no small matter.
         I always enjoy the California Ballot Propositions, and think they approach true democracy.  Not all states have them.  Powerful issues are on the current ballot, and even just one of them could motivate an "apathetic" person to vote.  Still, these Propositions seem to become more complex and overwhelming each year; it's sometimes hard to know what you're voting for or against.  Increasingly, the whole "initiative" process seems controlled by big bucks.
         It's important to vote, regardless of how twisted the system may have become.  Not voting is not an effective form of protest.  Perhaps miraculously, there are still candidates with integrity who deserve support.  Otherwise, we can select the lesser evil or cast "protest votes."  Those frightening Propositions always require our best (if sometimes imperfect) judgement.
         Elections happen just once or twice a year, but this is a good time to reflect on other ways we can "vote."  If you feel strongly about something and sit down to begin, it's not hard to write a letter to representatives or government officials, to the media, or to corporations and business leaders.  Few people write; those who do are heard.  Handwritten letters are taken especially seriously by congressional representatives.
         Perhaps most importantly, we automatically vote every day with our lifestyles and our dollars.  The more often I buy gas for my Honda, the more I'm voting for pollution, unpredictable climate change, and continued military domination of the Middle East.  When I refuse to buy an item with excessive packaging, I'm voting to conserve resources and landfill space.  By limiting my reproduction, I've voted to reduce humanity's impact on the earth.  I'm healthier when I cast votes for organic vegetables, live music, exercise, meditation, and heirloom seeds for the garden.
         What votes do we make with our employers?  In some cases, the world might be better off if we didn't go to work.  If we have savings or retirement plans, what are the financial institutions doing on our behalf?  Do they cast our votes for tobacco, sweatshop labor, and advanced weaponry?  If we don't like their choices, we can let them know and possibly move our accounts elsewhere.
         I hope everyone registers and participates in each election; our votes count and make a difference.  Still, we should remember that there are countless opportunities every day to make our voices heard and cast our votes for a better world.