Without going to look it up, how many candidates do you think are running for president of the USA in a few weeks' time?

6? 8? A dozen?
More than two, surely.
120?

You're close there, Alex. At least one of the figures is anyway.

Any more guesses?

I honestly thought it was four but then looked it up.

I remember seeing ballot papers from one of the times Bush Jnr got elected (they were demonstrating the issue with the holes not punching properly) and there were an awful lot of people on the list. I'd hazard a guess at about 60.

My only knowledge of American politics comes Youtube, and according to this video there are 3: Obarma Meow Meow Meow, Mitt Jagger Romney and ROOOOONNNNN PAAAAAAAUUUUULLLLLL. Not sure which one I am rooting for yet

The official ballot has 13 candidates on it.

The question everyone should be asking - especially in the US - is why only two candidates get to debate. The answer, obviously, is all about money.

There was also Gary Johnson on behalf of the Libertarian Party. I was not aware of all the others.

I know Romney did well in the polls after the TV debate, but I just can't see a republican getting in while the far right of the party wield the power. If they nominated someone who was a tad more moderate they'd appeal to a much higher percentage of the American population.

Romney is the moderate wing of the party. He was an ex Democrat and changes his mind on what he stands for so often, even three times in the same day yo can barely call that extremist. He has taken some extreme views to get selected by the Republican Party but has moderated or reset them to win the support of the population in general. Though Bush was elected by a party with just as extreme views in 2000 and 2004.

Indirectly perhaps. But directly it's because they have a system of only allowing candidates who are already at a certain level in the polls to get the oxygen of publicity on the grounds that anyone with less than X% is a waste of the stuff.

In most of those 11 cases they are of course quite right. Without bothering to look at their platforms I am willing to bet my extensive credibility on most of them being single issue candidates, like the guy who managed to actually get on a televised debate (for governor of New York State iirc) and said nothing but "the rent is too damn high".

Remember the fuss trying to get Nick Clegg at the debates. The media only really wanted Brown Cameron there.

My (non-existent) vote goes to Jill Stein.

If I had a vote it would be for her as well, though it might depend on how close the Obama Romney vote was.

I know. The system is obviously tilted to the big spenders, and has been more so since the mid-1990s. The Republican and Democratic parties run a corporation to run the debates to ensure no-one else gets a chance. One "third party" candidate has actually gone to court to try and overturn the duopoly.

What I was trying to get over is even though the UK's news media is giving the election extensive coverage - quite why it seems to get way more coverage than elections in Europe is another question - they continue to peddle the myth it's only a two horse race. It never has been.