The anti-vote system!!

I want to take a moment to put down in to words a new voting system theory I had in the last presidential election (Bush/Kerry 2004). The 2000 election brought about a new word to me - disenfranchise.

A definition that I like is this:
Disenfranchise - "deprive of civil or electoral privileges"

I thought that I felt disenfranchised in the 2004 election. I did not have my voting privileges taken away, but I felt like I was not given choices I believed in. Therefore I had a moment of genius (in my own opinion) and thought of a new voting system I call "The Anti-Vote".

I'll explain by what I see as current problems and the compare as to how the anti-vote system addresses them.

Problems with current system:

We are stuck with a two party system. The Republican and Democrat parties are the only parties with enough money and numbers behind them to have the power and resources to launch a major nationwide campaign.

We realistically have no other choices except the two main front runners - Democrat and Republican. Other people (independent or in other small political parties) who want to run either don't because they have no way of overcoming the strong party candidates. We, the people are given only two choices - two choices often in which we like neither candidate.

Solution:

The anti-vote. You still would have only one vote, but you can cast a normal (positive) vote OR an anti (negative) vote toward a candidate. If you don't like any candidate, then you can anti vote the candidate you distrust the most.

How does this help?

Now, the major party candidates will have many anti votes cast for them as well. This will bring their vote numbers down significantly. Not only will the United States citizen feel better for having the ability to vote their conscience, but the numbers could come down enough the small independent candidates or candidates from smaller parties actually may have enough votes to be a true contender in the election. If potential candidates with smaller backing have a better chance of winning, then as time goes on, more and more independent/non-Democrat/Republican candidates will run giving us a wider selection pool.

It seems a win/win situation to me. We, the voters have an outlet to vote our conscience and in the long run we will get a larger pool of candidates to choose from. With Republican/Democrat candidates not being "a given", they will have to work harder to gain our trust and possibly provide better candidates in the future.

What do you think?