If we're honest, Trump is most definetely better than Pence...

As a whole, my strongest beliefs on american politics currently are on electoral reforms. A system that gives only 2 viable options for the electorat is kust barely democratic, in my eyes. People feel obliged to abide to the group of opinions of one side or the other, and have become unable to view issues seperately (since they voted A, they feel the need to justify every single action that A takes, even if it isn't part of the issues which they chose A for.)

I really think that it's time that we dropped the terms "left" and "right". Issues should be regarded individually, and individuals should have the right to be judged independantly. 

As for the electoral system, it's just fine. 

 But as time went along I realized that I had a dislike for both candidates, so in order to support one, I had to listen to them speak.

I'll agree with notion, purely for the fact thatthe landscape has changed quite a bit. I know a lot of Trump supporters/defenders are Reagan Democrats, and let's be honest, the Democratic Party from 2000 is nowhere near the Party of today. How I see it is that Democrats have moved towards more leftist ideology whereas Repulicans have started to engulf parts of the left while keeping their original base in tact. That, and people tend to use the phrase as slander as shut down insults (similar to how Democrats constantly use racist, sexist, biggot, etc.). The political ideology is on a spectrum, some think slightly more left, but believe in a few solutions on the right.

As for the electoral system, it's just fine. I wish Dems and Repubs didn't control everything, but what else is there even to choose from. Libertarians have no motives to vote for, and the Green Party comes off as a single issue party to the majority of the public, which causes a lot of people to not vote for them (something that may become an issue in the Democratic Party if they go forward with the Trump bashing mentality. *Cough Waters, Pelosi, Schummer *Cough).

And as for people coming to their own conlusion, that's their own concern. I never let the Republican Party steal my vote, in fact I didn't like Trump at first. But as time went along I realized that I had a dislike for both candidates, so in order to support one, I had to listen to them speak. As I listened to Trump, he then came off as relatable to me. He didn't talk over me like Hillary, he used simple words to summarize my distaste in Washington. That and Hillary doing the whole deplorable thing really turned me off from her. Point is, I didn't like Trump, but by using my thoughts and hearing them speak, I was able to get the conclusion I desired for.

"New jobs" comparisons are kinda bad to do in such a small snapshot. There's a lot of factors that would go into it, much like the stock market (which has been incredible since Trump became President). It's not all due to or in lieu of the President.

And there's the problem. People should be able to legitametly vote for a candidate that they actually LIKE. With only 2 options, there's a high probability that that won't be the case.

There is a large divide within the republican party - one could easily justify a split. However, with the current electoral system, all that would do is guarantee a democrat victory. In a proportional parlimentary system, the split could be done, allowing for traditional republican voters to chose from a variety of different factions, choosing the one closest to their positions ("libertarian republicans", "conservative republicans" or the Tea party, for example.). Nonetheless, nothing is lost, as the repiblicans can still form a coalition thereafter, which, if larger than the democrats, wins the election. Similarly, Sanders could split off from the Democrats

This would allow the electorate not only to choose a republican/democrat government, but also to choose their composition, and the issues they favor. That, to me, is clearly more democratic.

The Libertarian party chose Gary Johnson who proved to be a pretty poor speaker. I was thinking about giving him my vote, but the more he talked, the less I wanted to vote for him. The party did make huge gains in the 2016 election over the 2012 election in terms of popular vote percentage, though it wasn't enough to break the 5% threshold that would earn the party public funding eligibility.

I came to a similar conlusion, though I ultimately abstained because I didn't find any candidate to be viable. However, it was pretty obvious that Hillary began to lose it such as when she claimed that Pepe is a white supremacist symbol. Not to mention, her neglect of the working class as well as her near lack of campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan ended up costing her the election.

The Libertarian party chose Gary Johnson who proved to be a pretty poor speaker. I was thinking about giving him my vote, but the more he talked, the less I wanted to vote for him. The party did make huge gains in the 2016 election over the 2012 election in terms of popular vote percentage, though it wasn't enough to break the 5% threshold that would earn the party public funding eligibility.

I came to a similar conlusion, though I ultimately abstained because I didn't find any candidate to be viable. However, it was pretty obvious that Hillary began to lose it such as when she claimed that Pepe is a white supremacist symbol. Not to mention, her neglect of the working class as well as her near lack of campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan ended up costing her the election.