No, you don't "got it." Multiple parties roughly equal strength might be a good thing or a bad thing. It will be a different thing. America has traditionally been a two-party state. From the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans to the Democrats and Republicans, two parties have shared or alternated governing power with third parties doing little more than playing spoiler for one of the two main parties (ie the Reform party in 1992 splitting votes from the Republicans and helping Clinton win the White House).

Now, you toss that out, you'll probably end up with a government that looks a lot like those of European Democracies. That's not necessarily bad or good, but it is different. That's all that I'm saying.

Leave it like it is. Now I get it.

I agree with your frustration, and had a few conversations with my 24 year old son- His point to me when I said "What is the point of voting"? ..."In Rhode Island we get 1 electoral vote, so really, why should I bother, I do not want either of those candidates in office and my vote for Johnson isn't going to change the fact that one or the other will win and nobody will even care about my vote". He was very passionate in telling me that yes, the electoral college needs to go , but even though my vote will not give my candidate a shot- it is still my vote and every person needs to vote and understand that their vote does count to someone- the person voting. If we all give up because "My vote doesn't count" then where would we be? He would rather work toward getting rid of the EC, we need to get that done so votes can count and the two big parties cannot be in total control. I was pleased with our conversations- mostly because both my 24 yr old son and 22 yr old daughter were so passionate about their right to vote regardless of the EC- I did go and cast my vote for Gary Johnson even though I knew he would not have a chance in hell of winning...but it was my vote, and my opinion and at least for me that does count for something. It also delights me to see that the younger generation are paying attention and that for all my cynicism and age, I need to remember that there is always our ability to hope for change, keep trying for change and not give up even when the odds are stacked against us.

Thinking is the enemy of creativity. It's self-conscious, and anything self-conscious is lousy. You can't try to do things. You simply must do things."

--Ray Bradbury,
American writer

I also am in favor of switching to direct elections for many of the reasons discussed so far, plus one other. Historically it hasn't really mattered much since the electoral college almost always gets the same result as the popular vote, but IMO direct elections would make it easier for political change to occur. In the general election the smaller parties get disregarded completely since they don't actually tally any electoral votes, so the fact that a certain percentage voted Libertarian or Socialist or whatever becomes irrelevant.

In this past election, if the Republicans had their noses rubbed in the fact that they might have won were it not for people voting libertarian or writing in Ron Paul, they might be forced to try to appeal to those voters, rather than ignoring them. Also, it would make it easier for the population to see when a set of ideas are really gaining traction, and thus make them more attractive to the "Wasted Vote" crowd.

I agree with your frustration, and had a few conversations with my 24 year old son- His point to me when I said "What is the point of voting"? ..."In Rhode Island we get 1 electoral vote, so really, why should I bother, I do not want either of those candidates in office and my vote for Johnson isn't going to change the fact that one or the other will win and nobody will even care about my vote". He was very passionate in telling me that yes, the electoral college needs to go , but even though my vote will not give my candidate a shot- it is still my vote and every person needs to vote and understand that their vote does count to someone- the person voting. If we all give up because "My vote doesn't count" then where would we be? He would rather work toward getting rid of the EC, we need to get that done so votes can count and the two big parties cannot be in total control. I was pleased with our conversations- mostly because both my 24 yr old son and 22 yr old daughter were so passionate about their right to vote regardless of the EC- I did go and cast my vote for Gary Johnson even though I knew he would not have a chance in hell of winning...but it was my vote, and my opinion and at least for me that does count for something. It also delights me to see that the younger generation are paying attention and that for all my cynicism and age, I need to remember that there is always our ability to hope for change, keep trying for change and not give up even when the odds are stacked against us.

Thinking is the enemy of creativity. It's self-conscious, and anything self-conscious is lousy. You can't try to do things. You simply must do things."

--Ray Bradbury,
American writer

I can appreciate your sentiment and agree that its heartening to hear of younger people interested in the voting process. However, I am forced to disagree with your general idea. I would love for this country to be forced to the questions that no one voting would raise. You seem to think that if no one voted the system would fall apart and that would be bad. Maybe it would be for a little while, but maybe it would also lead to significant change. Maybe it would finally wake everyone up to the corrupt and futile system we have now. Sometimes the old ways must break apart completely for the new ways to be established.

I also am in favor of switching to direct elections for many of the reasons discussed so far, plus one other. Historically it hasn't really mattered much since the electoral college almost always gets the same result as the popular vote, but IMO direct elections would make it easier for political change to occur. In the general election the smaller parties get disregarded completely since they don't actually tally any electoral votes, so the fact that a certain percentage voted Libertarian or Socialist or whatever becomes irrelevant.

In this past election, if the Republicans had their noses rubbed in the fact that they might have won were it not for people voting libertarian or writing in Ron Paul, they might be forced to try to appeal to those voters, rather than ignoring them. Also, it would make it easier for the population to see when a set of ideas are really gaining traction, and thus make them more attractive to the "Wasted Vote" crowd.

The problem, IMO, with direct elections is that they become even more of a popularity contest then they already are now. A big reason Obama won was because he had the money and the personality. I know of plenty of people who voted for him simply based on his “charisma”. Ask anybody, even a lot of his detractors will tell you that he is a good speaker. Doesn’t matter that there is very little substance, he danced with Ellen on her show, he must be president worthy. Look at all the celebrities that endorsed him, you don’t think that swayed some people? Remember Clinton and his sax playing? A lot of his vote was attributed to that; he was able to look hip compared to stodgy old Bush. When we focus on style over substance, we wind up with showmen who don’t have any idea how to do things or vapid puppets.
Additionally, making it a direct election means only the major population centers get attention, which happens too much already. Did you know that in order to win and be president of the US, all you have to do is win 11 states? 11 out of 50? How does that even make any sense?
I do, however, agree that it would make other parties more visible and would give the individual voter a better sense of your vote actually mattering. Of course, there is a entirely different set of issues with getting other parties even on the ballot.

I used to be completely against this for the reasons the electoral college was first put forward. This election changed my mind. It is time.

I don't vote. I figure most anyone who aspires to be president (and, certainly, anyone who has a chance to actually win) should not be allowed to be president.

Interesting article from reason:http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/yo...esnt-count

Here's my suggestion...modify the Electoral College in this manner:

1) Since the Electoral College is set up by the number of Congressmen and Senators, instead of a "winner take all", the candidate who carries an individual Congressional District gets the Electoral vote.

2) The two votes per state that were set up for the Senators would then go to whoever has the highest popular vote total.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see five or six major political parties.

And the best way to get THAT started is at the grass roots level...don't start out running for President. Elect mayors, state legislators, and local officials first, and then work your way up from there.

A third party President without Congressional support will be about as effective as a fart in a hurricane at getting things done. Especially since the media will be all over him/her/yx like a pack of starving wolves on a caribou.

Screw electoral college, and screw popular vote too. I'm sick of the whole nation being run according to the extremely misguided whims of all the big cities.

Put the power in the hands of the states. Each state gets one vote. The candidate that wins 26 states, wins the election. The people in California shouldn't have more say than the people in Montana just because there are more of them.

If no candidate wins 26 states, then the 2 candidates, with the most states, have a runoff.