See, here's my thing. Yeah, I hate having to choose between two. I never felt Gore or Bush were worth voting for either. So go third party? No, they weren't either. No one even came close to my particular views since, imo, a man has to be able to build a consensus and work with the system (even if his design is to change that system) to get things done. None of the "third party" candidates seemed capable of getting things done even were they elected -- ignoring the fact that their ideological foci seemed pretty wacky in the first place. But it's all moot because they're not capable of being elected, which is a whole new can of worms.
So who do you vote for? I couldn't justify voting for anyone. There wasn't anyone I wanted in the white house. And what does writing in REALLY accomplish? Not much.
Anyway, my little rant, for what it's worth. fortunately, next presidential election (2008) it won't matter, because I'll start writing myself in, since by inauguration day 2009 i'll be 35 and Constitutionally permitted to serve as Pres. This year, I'll probably write myself in for Senate and House.
As for stability.... I don't know that it needs to be so stable. It's already built into the system to get law-passing slow, Constitutional amendments are hard to do, and we have the Supreme Court back up (which could also use more than 2 sides, imo).