My Problem with Limited Options

I want to begin by saying that I want this to be a non-partisan discussion. In fact, that's the problem. That I should even have to preface this with that disclaimer is ridiculous.

It's my opinion that when democracy was founded, they intended for a diverse range of opinions to heard in political discussions. Now, I understand that human society has a tendancy to group together; and I know the loudest voice (or the most voices together) is more easily heard. That being said, I can see how we ended up with a two-party representative government (and I'm not saying it doesn't work), but hear me out.

Hypothetically, let start over with the 2012 election. ALL political offices would be up for election from the POTUS to your town sheriff. If you would like to run for office, you are required to cut your political affiliations and submit an open description of your opinions/beliefs/policital desires/voting record. This document will be made available to everyone in the district/state/country, so that it can be reviewed by those that will vote for you. You can change these at any time but the change will also be publicized.

Now, if parts of the country want to band together with similar policital views/goals into say a political party they can. Ideally it should be very specific, like the "We Approve of Stem Cell Research" party or the "Fund the Military Industrial Complex" party. Each group or party would then be able to endorse any candidate in any election... thus forming a coalition of sorts. So we could have a candidate running for office with endorsements as Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun, Anti-involvement in the Middle East, Pro-Social Welfare, Anti-China, Pro-Environment, Anti-Immigration, and Anti-Budget Reduction... just to name a few.

Isn't it frustrating to have only two choices for office? Especially when you take issue with the politics of both candidates in some way? Too often people are voting for a candidate out of frustration with the incumbent of the previous official's party. For example, in my first official election as a Missourian (2004), I voted for Matt Blunt for Governor. I was upset with the democratic administration for cutting spending for high education (a direct affect on me) and over-spending. Do I regret my decision? Yes. If I had other options, I might have voted a different way.

I know what you're saying... third party candidates never win. I know, that's why we have to do away with the Democrat vs. Republican thing. If someone wants to run for office, they shouldn't have to be a slave to either Republican or Democrat rhetoric/party unity. Believe me, there is such a thing as a Pro-Life, aetheist, who thinks we should continue with our foreign policy and start using our own oil resources. But whom would that person vote for in the 2012 election?

I open this for criticism. I studied some of the (unsuccessful) coalition governments in Latin America and believe that if they had a stronger base of government and less opportunity for corruption, it would have worked out in places like Nicaragua. Let me know what you think.