You might be thinking of like Canada's provincial system or something. The United States uses a federal system of government. In other words, the state and local systems are largely separate and apart from the national election system. It's possible for individual states to introduce electoral reforms for themselves that don't get applied to national elections. Consider the case of Vermont, for instance. Vermont has introduced electoral reforms that have rendered third parties a bit more viable there, with the result that the Vermont Progressive Party -- a local institution inspired by (though not endorsed by) Bernie Sanders -- has won more parliamentary representation than any other third party in the country. And yet Vermont's state-level parliamentary elections are just that: local elections. Their system has no bearing on the national system. It affects only Vermont, and only in their state and local-level elections at that. Hence why there is no national analogy to Vermont's Progressive Party that has representation in the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate.

(The Vermont Progressives, it may be worth adding, are also not exactly a serious threat to the Vermont Democrats, as shown by the fact that the latter regularly win some two-thirds of the seats in the state's parliament.)

There's also the state of Nebraska where candidates aren't allowed to run on a party affiliation. In other words, at the state level, Nebraska has no Republican or Democratic officials. Formally anyway. But in national elections, Nebraska regularly chooses Republicans to represent them in the U.S. Senate and likewise votes to elect Republicans president. Here again, two separate systems: state and national. The one does not directly affect the other.

Conversely, we've had to have a national Voting Rights Act in order to prevent many states from systematically disenfranchising voters of color for being voters of color, and said policy has been significantly weakened by a 2013 verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is an issue in this election.

Thanks for the explanation. I was a bit thrown off by Maine and Nebraska not having winner takes all, so I thought states could decide themselves what electoral system they want to have in place.

Eeh, I thought these were more forgettable than Michelle Obama's. Out of the above, somebody might remember Barack Obama's speech in two more weeks, particularly being as he was our last president and remains extremely popular among Democrats, but the rest will likely be forgotten by nearly everyone. Each had its standout moments (especially Barack Obama's), but none sustained my sincere attention from beginning to end like Michelle Obama's speech.

The closest thing to a runner-up to Michelle Obama's speech in my opinion was this clip from the first night where a woman relays having to bury her father because he, a strong supporter of the president, had taken Dr. Trump's advice on the coronavirus to heart. She says, among other things, that her father felt betrayed by the president in his final hours and that she plans to vote for Joe Biden in his place. How does one refute that argument? What can anyone say? I've seen people on the internet try and the efforts are pretty pathetic. Most attempts I've seen include the term "communism", for example, which smacks of real desperation.

I see the tolerant left is going strong.

Well, there you are wrong. As Moren has shown in the thread about the primaries, he clearly isn't progressive left, more like a moderate or so. What would you label yourself with, Moren? But apparently for some people everyone less radical than Ted 'bomb the desert until it glows' Cruz apparently is a communist or so.

No, they are not. Just like people defending their home against a violent mob are not scum of the earth. I just dont understand where that kind of thinking is coming from. So excuse me for getting confused.

I only point out, that he isn't on the left. Actually you both act also pretty similar. Moren names Sandmann, the McCloskys, Andrew Pollack as the more extremist examples and equates them with Republican party generally. You pick violent looters and equate them with the Democratic party. Both of you are so predictable, boring and actually the same. Because politically you are not too far away, maybe you are even closer than Moren is to the progressive left. But both of you are also so caught up in painting the other side as the devil incarnate. That is boring and exhausting, as it actually doesn't do shit to improve anyones lifes.

You both should learn, that 'the enemy' are people too, and they also want the best for themselfes and their families and friends. They only disagree on how to get there. Trump wasn't elected only by a bunch of billionaires, and Hillary Clinton not only by a group of Washington insiders. Both had a lot of 'normal' people voting for them. Because said normal people thought of each their choice, that they would be best to help bring about improvements to their lives.