It had to do with a large country, the fight between States vs. Federal power, the idea that some people are more important than others, a lack of technology in the late 1700s, and how extremely difficult it would be to hold a popular election with any kind of validity whatsoever. Among other factors.

It's true that FPTP practically gives a duopoly but it makes a whole lot of sense when there's only position for ONE ...

Tell me rol, does it make sense to have two or multiple presidents each having power representative to the proportional vote ?

Are you talking about the Electoral College? Cause your rant is pretty scatterbrained and nonspecific. If so, it is supposed to allow for proportionate representation of the interests of each State based on their population. As it has been referred to, the US was intended as a Sovreign Nation of many Sovreign States. The point, therefore, is for the election to represent the wills and desires and interests of the States. Electoral College representative numbers for each state is the same as the number of Congress members that State holds. Contrary to popular parlance, we are NOT a democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Direct democracy voting is not part of our system and rarely is ever used and yes, there is a reason for that. But the odds of a President winning the Absolute Majority of Electoral votes and NOT the absolute majority of the populace vote is very low. It has happened only a small number of times. It is more about a constant interplay and ballance between the power of the people, the representatives of the people, and then the federal and state powers. And direct democracy brings with it a host of other problems, fyi, if you take it to its extreme that many want to.

As for the bipartisan nature, that is only really a 20th and 21st century issue. Shoot, four presidents were a Whigs. It's just the way it usually falls due to a large number of variables. A nation of this scale, the costs of campaigning, it naturally lends to a bipartisan status. This could be corrected with much tighter campaign fund regulations. But bipartisanship is not part of the election system, it is just something that happened.

Also, you could have learned all the answers to all your questions with a single Google search and less than half an hour on a Wikipedia page. This is hardly classified material :P

very well said and concise given the topic/question

It's very rare to to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote so your right that there's improvement to be had over there but it's not the largest concern and it's really not necessary to have run off voting when there's usually only two parties that can sustain support throughout a campaign so you end up with a duopoly first hand anyway ... 

OP's issue about first past the post still remains unaddressed even after these two supposed reforms when he'll realize that the lifeboat is only big enough for 1 and the crew members of the sinking ship have to decide which person to save ... 

That's FTFP to the extreme for ya ... 

There are lots of aspects of the voting system that could be changed for the better, that's true.  Technology has gone a long ways toward erasing some of the logistics problems faced when dealing wtih a massive country.  Distance and size are the natural enemies of democracy.  Also, when the United States was founded, there was a very real fight over how much power each State should possess versus the Federal government.  There were lots of disagreements and compromises between the men who created the system.

Changing now would be next to impossible, though.  You'd need a clear majority of people in power to agree that not only is change needed, but on a solution.  When the only thing politicians really care about is an advantage for their own party, that's not going to happen easily.

The only time you'll see a politicians get motiviated would be if their party got screwed over big-time in an election.  However, the other party would be like, "no, it's fine," until they got screwed over, then the other side would be content with the process.

Each state still acts its own soveriegn nation (or should in theory) that is why its done by state and not by over all votes. States can choose to split their delegates as well as far as i know. no state does though

It would be like electing European Union Leaders by popular vote across the EU instead of by each country. Federal US elections should be compared more to EU elections, and State level elections should be compared to european country elections for a better example. Not exactly the same but better

I believe that the electoral college actually helps suppress votes. One might just give up if their state constantly votes against them in the Presidential election. Your vote doesn't count if your state goes against you. They always say your vote counts but it really doesn't if your state is very red or blue. That is the main reason why I don't vote besides the fact that I don't really like the two major parties. I would like to see USA throw out the electoral college and go straight to popular vote. That would please me a lot.

Our system was never meant to give too much power to the people. I believe only white land owners were allowed to vote at first. Then we messed things up by giving women the right to vote and caused a decade or so of gangster paradise with prohibition.

In the electoral college your vote casts a vote for a representative that casts a vote later. Supposedly they could override the people of the state and vote for someone else but they usually always vote for who the majority of the people voted for. Look what happens when the electoral goes against the people. We get someone like Bush.

One thing that needs to be addressed is the gerrymandering of districts.  This should simply not be allowed.  The districts should be made up of counties or one county if there is a huge city residing in the district.  There shouldn't be pratices to try and divided the vote up in one's favor.