100% on a public fund? So I should be paying for the elections of Republicans and Democrats even though they are private parties that may for no reason exclude me?

It's done this way in many other countries. For example, in Canada, each party receives $2 per vote received in the last election to campaign in the next election. Corporate donations are banned, although small donations by individuals are still allowed.

You're paying now through the distortion of the electoral process and the indirect increase in your cost of goods and services (the hundreds of billions spent on elections comes from somewhere). Don't you think it's worth it for your taxes to go up $2 to eliminate those costs?

We can ban corporate donations without raising taxes, and without giving people's money to parties they don't support.

Or.... you could still run, but not as a Republican or a Democrat?

And lose, like everyone else who tried. When was the last time a president wasn't a Republican or a Democrat? That's right, when he was a Whig.

>And lose, like everyone else who tried.

You mean like everyone else who's tried before moving to public funded elections, with restrictions on campaign donations?

Of course I can't guarantee that one change will result in a third-party getting meaningful representation, but it's at least a start.

>All of politics should run 100% (including elections) on a public fund.

That's a horrible idea. The dominate parties would become even more dominate with the backing of the government. I do not approve of my tax money being spent on ridiculous political commercials either.