Let me stipulate here that I am a big fan of multiparty democracy. I support having more than two major parties competing actively and aggressively for elective office. The answer isn't to be found in simply putting more candidates or parties on the ballot. The reality is trying to run a multiparty democracy within the limited confines of plurality voting rules can create some perverse incentives. For instance, some Democrats cheered when Pat Buchanan broke from the Republican Party last year, just as some conservatives have been promoting the candidacy of Ralph Nader in an attempt to split the vote on the Left and hand victory to Bush.
People end up spending too much time gaming the current system instead of reforming it.
The good news is that viable alternatives to plurality elections abound. Two-round elections, in which one vote is a runoff, are used in most of the world's presidential races. But a better change could be implemented right now by the states. In the coming presidential race, some voters on the left would be able to rank Nader first and Gore second. On the right, a good number of voters might very well rank Buchanan first and Bush second.