Are people still whining about the 2000 election? Jeez, get over it already. How about Al Gore actually wins his home state, then the whole conversation is moot. He'd have been only the 4th person elected president not to do so had he been declared the winner.

And the reason the whole electoral "college" system is in place is so that all states get a proportional representation and so that it's not just the two coasts and the big cities determining every national election.

This may be a bit eye opening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Yeah, you're reading what I wrote and inferring that I suggest throwing out the constitution at the same time.  Inaccurate, and nothing I said suggests that.  Everything remains the same, including the Supreme Court which shoots down any attempt at a majority marginalizing and oppressing a minority.  As far as forcing people to be more active in the process, notice I said nothing about requiring people to vote, or making voting a part of citizenship, that's because I wasn't suggesting that.  I was merely suggesting the people take more responsibility for the Government, than closing their eyes and letting a few hundred people do so, when it's no longer necessary. For citizens to partake in the voting of legislation, it would automatically increase their understanding of things the Government is doing.  That's really all I meant.

But hey, it's cool you read what I wrote, assumed things I didn't say, and then formulated a response based on your own fears, that really helps push discussion forward.

Exactly. All it does is create bias and divsion. Personally i think if you claim any party you're an idiot. 

So your post wasn't clear, ambigous, and the language was imprecise and I am seeing what I want to see? "It's also high time that the populace is actually forced to take a larger role in this country" has one very likely meaning and then various distorted meanings, of which you chose one. Maybe in the future use more precise and unambigous language and people wouldn't infer drastically different things. 

You are doing the same thing to me by the way. Since when did I show any thought that you believe the constitution should be thrown away. I raised concerns of checks and balances within the legislature and between the legislature and other branches of government being erroded with a direct democratic system. Are you proposing a 1:1 transfer of powers that congress has to the electorate, including the checks and balances? How exactly are the executive and legislature separated in your system, you alluded to the executive writing bills, which implies a merger of the legislative and executive branches. I would think there are many functional issues that make all of that unlikely without fundamentally changing what the intended goals of the system are. And that is without even considering dual federalism and the role of the states in the electoral process. 

Yep, you're seeing what you want to see.

Government changes exactly how much a populace forces it too. The big thing I would change that seems plausible is campaign finance reform. Specifically I find Citizens United to be one of the worst decisions in recent Supreme Court history. Money corrupts every government in every culture. Putting restrictions is how we keep it in check. Right now the billionaires of the US can influence policy in such a sway that makes results or parties irrelevant.

Now, I'm all for more proportional representation and term limits, but I think the goal short term should be a focused effort to overturn a terrible decision.

The electoral college system is non-sense.

1.) I would prefer that there aren't any parties because I want candidates to be elected by merit. However, I'm not against a third or even fourth a party either. It would be nice to see a libertarian (with a lowercase "l") party as I find the Democrats and Republicans too authoritarian (though for different reasons). As a left-leaning libertarian, I am not convinced by any presidential candidate.

2.) I agree with you on the electoral college, but your reasoning could use some work. I'm against the "winner takes all" mentality because there will be cases where the vote will be extremely close. For Candidate A to, for instance, win all of Ohio's electoral votes by a 2% advantage is not representative of the state's opinions of Candidate A and B. Gerrymandering also needs to go.

3.) I am not against the idea of Citizens United as a group. However, I do not like the lack of funding limits because that will lead to Citizens United representing only a mere fraction of the constiuency.

4.) I think encouraging people who can't or aren't willing to go to the polls to do absentee balloting is a better solution.

1+2. In theory at least, the US already have a multiparty system. If I where american, depending where I lived I'd vote for either the peace and freedom party, the green party or the democrats. However, first past the post and winner takes all both ensure that all the thir party won't have any chance to ever become president since it makes voting for them as pointless as not voting at all. A proportional or at least a highest averages like the Jefferson Method counting system would give those parties finally a chance to compete and make every vote count.

An alternative would be to eleminate the party system altogether and just vote the persons, without any affilitaion. Winner takes all however would still ensure that the final result ain't really representative of the percentage: If, with 5 candidates total, a candidate would place second in every single state while the others take turns at winning different states, it could in theory end up with a candidate having the highest amount of popular votes yet not a single representative at the end. A multiparty system would however still be needed for the senate then.

3. SuperPacs and the money they make are just used as pure propaganda and diffamation tools. I've yet to see any message produced by them which was actually really constructive or presenting a programm of what the respective candidate intends to do in detail during his period at the office.

Here in Luxembourg, every party gets the same budget, no matter it's size, as long as they can provide a full list of candidates (in our voting system, each one gets as many potential votes as there are ministers (with the head of state being the prime minister). Each party list thus has just as many candidates as well, and voters can give up to 2 votes to a candidate, check a whole party list or mix-and-match as he pleases with the amount of votes each voter has). This ensures that everyone fights at equal terms, while the SuperPacs are really just one step away from giving the power to possibly outright buying votes.

4. Still wouldn't help people like medical staff, firefighters, policemen etc... who, as an unit, can't exactly take a day off. Better would be the right to get 2 hours to half a day free for voting purposes and then return to the job with no legal possibility for your superiors to forbid or otherwise hinder you from going to vote.

I would also add some other thing:

Minimum age for President: currently 35 years, while in pretty much the whole rest of the world it's the same age as when one aquires the right to vote or sightly afterwards, meaning from 18 to early 20's. Wile presidents are generally older than that in every country, the reason is because of the need of experience and rising ranks in the respective party, something that's not necessary in the US as the republican candidates right now amply shows.

Also, much harsher punishments for people or organisations who try to keep people from voting properly through different means like voter caging and misinformation campaigns.