The antithesis of what I've always argued for is our current plurality vote system. I don't know yet if I'll support the Unity party, or any other viable third party, in 2008, but I'd certainly like to see the Rep/Dem monopoly end in whatever way possible. But, to be honest, I care about this issue more with respect to the House and Senate than with the president.

Isn't this the antithesis of what you've always argued for? This is the ultimate centering of the political process. In fact, once we have this party, there's no need for any others. We've reached equilibrium.

But seriously, what a stupid idea. I'm not at all against third parties, per se--though they will never win major elective office (thank you, Duverger). But I have to scoff at a third party running just for the sake of being another third party. Unity08 seems to have no platform beyond recognizing that there are "crucial" and "important" issues. Well that's nice. I can't help but notice that they take no stance on those issues. But at least they tell us which they believe are important. Global terrorism, our national debt, and our dependence on foreign oil are all crucial issues. I'm for them all, I say! Let's form a party. Oh, you're against them? We can form a party anyway! Dumb.

"As a result, most Americans have not been enthusiastic about the choices for President in recent elections, the key issues they ran on, or the manner in which the campaigns were conducted." Huh? 2000 and 2004 had among the highest voter turnouts in recent presidential elections. Most of us who contribute to this blog got involved in the elections in one form or another. The campaign committees collected record-shattering donations. 529 organizations formed for the first time since BCRA. The web was widely used for a political cause, getting a younger generation involved in civic life. Honestly, what the fuck are they talking about?

Prez and Vice prez, dem or rep, "in whatever order" is my favorite, cuz there really is no difference between the powers of the prez and veep. Right.

Directionless amateurs.

Even though 2000 and 2004 had the highest voter turnouts in recent years, it was still a pretty piss poor turnout when compared with other nations. It's like getting a C- on a paper, when al your prior papers were Ds. Sure, it's better, but it wouldn't be called good. And though a younger genration got involved, there was no real increase in turnout among young voters. In fact, I don't think that many more people got involved, I just think the media coverage of the election and those getting involved increased.

Actually, there was an increase in turnout of young voters from 2000 to 2004, but the percentage remained the same because turnout increased for all age groups.

http://www.newvotersproject.org/turnout

I like the idea that a viable third party might spring up, but if I wanted to vote for Republicrats, I already have that option. (Cf. Dianne Feinstein.)

Also:
We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system[...]

Eh? The two-party system is very much self-reinforcing.