Well, Maybe

    I often think about and sometimes write about things we should do and obviously won't do.

    For example:  https://stillpittsburgh.blogspot.com/2017/02/walk-like-athenian.html.  Boy, I was kinda proud of that.  It's the idea called sortition.  It turns out lots of people have written about that and done a much better job than I did.  It confirms my suspicion I have never actually had an original idea. Oh well.

    People want to abolish the Electoral College.  It's understandable.  The idea was to avoid the  "tyranny of the majority".  That's a real thing and certainly can be a real problem.  The Founding Fathers were right to consider the concept.  I don't think they ever considered their creation made an opportunity for a "tyranny of the minority",  like we're seeing now.  I know they never thought that minority would be composed of every poorly informed lout, led by a poorly informed lout.  I don't think it ever occurred to the  Founding Fathers someone might,  rather than try to elevate the poorly informed, forge them into a voting block.  Didn't see that coming.

    In the last 20  years we've seen that "tyranny of the minority" produce disastrous results.  Jesus! Nearly a million innocent people are dead.  Al Gore never would have invaded the wrong country or mis-waged a war in the right country, the only goal of which turned out to be consolidation of the international trade in heroin.  The whole thing is irrational and was easily avoidable.

    By the same token, Hillary Clinton never would have reinstated Bush's laughable tax cuts for the wealthy.  Nor would she have immersed the Pentagon in a hot tub full of borrowed money.  That's a financial disaster we're going to wear like an albatross for generations.  There's a lot of things being done  Mrs Clinton wouldn't have done because she knows better.  She doesn't seem to listen to AM radio much.  I suspect she reads. 

    The Electoral College has been called racist in conception.  That's outright bullshit.  The idea is tangentially related to the idea of slaves being 3/5ths of a person but just not the same thing.   Both concepts addressed the reality at the time.  The concept of crying 'racist'  just proves a little racism goes a long way.  People don't like racism much. You don't have to endorse or tolerate much to earn a life-long label.  That's as it should be.  Even racists don't like being called racist because they know racism is wrong.

    However, the Electoral College is not what we don't like much.  We don't like the asymmetrical outcomes. Since 2000, the Green Party has thrown the elections to the republicans a couple notable times.  If you look at their party principles, that's an unintended consequence.  We'd like to avoid that and we're searching for ways to not do that.  

    We have a dyed in the wool, two-party system but third party candidates have a habit of emerging in and twisting the results of presidential elections.  You could say Teddy Roosevelt made Woodrow Wilson President.  Wallace made Nixon President and certainly, Ross Perot made Clinton President. Following that reasoning, Nader made GW President and Jill Stein made Trump president.  That's a little simplistic but it does make the point.  We don't like the Electoral College much but what we really don't like is the effects of these 'stalking horses'.
    My idea to deal with that is to just hold run-off elections.  It's not new or unusual. Over 30 countries do it worldwide.   When Trump seemed to have won, about 60% of the population said,  " I'll be damned."  Had a run-off been held a week, month or year later, excluding the 3rd party candidates,  Mrs Clinton would have won in a walk-over.  Hell, Donald Duck would have won in a walk-over.  We're not going to do that.  It would involve amending the Constitution and that's just not going to happen.
    Maine has what seems to be a better idea. They have voted in  'Ranked Choice".  You simply vote for your first and second choice.  If no one reaches a simple majority the least popular are eliminated and the second choices are counted until someone does reach a majority.
    My first thought about that was, 'That's a good idea'.  My second thought was, 'Boy are they gonna get sued.'   It seems to be holding up in court.
    So, is it something we should do but won't do or is it a good idea that will gain traction over time.
    We'll see.  It is better than my idea.
    Until we reach a long term solution we have to avoid the effects of these   'stalking horse' candidates.  That starts with acknowledging that, at least for now, we are most certainly a two-party system.