you don't want more than two major parties, trust me
you know how you got angry that less than 50% of the population won Annoying Orange the election? if you look at countries that have more than two major parties, that means that it's almost guaranteed that less than 50% of the population will win their candidate the presidency, every single time
this is a very good point that is always worth bringing up, and it's hard to fix this issue with a FPTP voting system where you're electing a single person to a seat of power based on majority. preferential voting is probably the easiest option to implement, otherwise you'd have to restructure the govt. entirely.
FPTP ultimately forces people to settle for less because they can only cast one vote that they have to use strategically on the person most likely to gain them representation, inevitably leading to a two-party split, but preferential voting lets people vote for who they really want without having to worry that it'll be wasted. other than that, it increases political efficacy because people feel like they're able to actually have a voice, and that alone makes it worth looking into
some videos on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsEI've made my point quite clear in the past about the electoral college, and voter fraud should be a united issue but every time legislation tries to get passed the loonies cry racism
i'm generally of the opinion that we need to make it easier for citizens to vote, not harder. the prob is that a lot of anti-fraud policies inevitably impact real voters too, even if it's not intentional, and it tends to be the less fortunate power minorities who are impacted most
edit for some of my thoughts:
my personal opinion on the electoral college is that we can adapt the system we already have and make it better. because states decide how to allocate their electoral votes, a good deal of reform can be done without even needing constitutional amendments. currently, 48/50 states are winner-take-all, meaning whoever gets a majority in that state will take all of its votes. this is inherently unrepresentative and it's a policy that exists to give majority parties more power. instead, states should appropriately allocate their votes by district or by proportion of the popular vote. this will immediately make the electoral college more representative without any need for coordination above the state level. afterwards, states may even experiment with other voting methods such as preferential voting. this is a solution that does not require constitutional reform or any restructuring of the national electoral college system, which makes it significantly easier to implement. it also still gives smaller states proportionally greater power per capita than large states, which many see as a worthwhile benefit to the electoral college in the interest of protecting less-populated regions (even if it makes the system as a whole much less representative)
just my thoughts, it's obvs not a perfect solution, but i think it would be a step in the right direction
Poll