There are serious flaws in our system, but it doesn't mean our system is on it's death bed.
For most candidates, the answer is that yes, they win at all costs. Think about it, where else do people waste so much money to win a job that pays only a small percentage of what is available to a CEO in most companies??
The problem is that people want power. They want it so that they can use it. Perhaps for the good of some people, perhaps for the good of only one person (themselves), but they want it.
Both sides in our system will promise anything, say anything, and pander to just about anyone so they can be elected. After they are elected they're left wondering what now, as most have no real conviction to get anything in particular done.
At some point in the future though, we are likely to see a real, legitimate, alternative party to the existing parties, with a real alternative candidate that hasn't been bought and paid for by every special interest under the sun. For as crazy as some may think he is, Ralph Nader comes close to that, but unfortunately he can't pull enough real votes to matter in the election.
If there was a more clear cut difference between Kerry and Bush, it's possible that Nader (or someone similar) might come into more votes by representing the middle ground between both of the other candidates. Unfortunately though, Nader is so far out to the left, that he represents (in most ways) just another Kerry, and winds up not being a real choice (even though Kerry has tried very hard to represent himself as very similar to G.W. Bush).
