The Founding Fathers weren't advocates of a 2 party system as they knew it leads to a hugely corrupt political system, much like what we have now.
You're kidding, right? How do those names get on the ballots or into the primaries? I'll tell ya how, the DNC and GOP pick the candidates for you by endorsing them. If you run as a Republican or Democrat without GOP/DNC approval you will get no support and thus will have no chance of winning. It is VERY much a "good ole boy" network.
If we can vote into office anyone we please, then tell me when was the last time we had an Independent President?
In 1800 Millard Fillmore was elected as a Whig. In 1804 Franklin Pierce won the Presidency as a Democrat and we've had nothing but Democrats and Republicans ever since.
It is irrelevant what the founding fathers 'intended' to make. It does matter what works...and the two-party system works. Very well.
We have plenty of choice within the primaries. For Republicans, we had from Tancredo to Paul...a VERY large portion of the spectrum. For Democrats, we had from Kucinich to...well, I guess Hillary is the most conservative of the bunch.
Tancredo, Paul, and Kucinich didn't have a chance because their ideas are NOT POPULAR, not because they don't have endorsement from the parties. Other than that, the choice was incredibly diverse, both physically and ideologically, this time around. This is the same with independent candidates. Their ideas are generally not that popular. If they were, they would get elected. In addition, they will never get elected because they do not have the political infrastructure available to them. But would you want someone without enough political power to run a successful campaign to be in charge of the government? Probably not.
Independents have always played their role in our system. They inject new ideas into the parties. Ron Paul's idea of smaller government will most likely push the Republican party back towards its small government roots.