There's virtually zero chance of this happening without another party collapsing first.
Hell, even then, independents are harder to herd than cats.
Hence, they are hard to herd because they are actually already decided.
This isn't conjecture. I've seen the base files.
> This isn't conjecture. I've seen the base files.
Until you share, it's conjecture.
> Independent white men are generally Republican voters
?
The name of the game isn't changing hearts and minds (generally), but turnout. 2016 isnt an outlier. Look at county level returns.
The chance of that happening in the next four years? Really low. About as unlikely as it has been since the Internet established itself as a place to talk about how to fix the voting system. But unlikely doesn't mean you don't try, and don't talk about it where you can.
California, for example, has a huge population of Republicans and now their vote would matter. I don't think Trump did any non military focused rallies there.
I am in Illinois. I didn't vote in 2008 or 2012 because I knew my vote would have no impact. Give me a popular vote and you might have Romney... Be careful what you wish for.
And at the same time votes from Democrats in California would also matter more. I'd assume a number of people who'd vote Democrat in CA don't vote because they know the Democrats won't lose anyway.
I'm all for a popular vote, but I don't think you're going to see a swing to the left necessarily.
It would definitely be radical change though.
The system isn't fair, voters in low pop states have more power than california.
The system emphasizes swing states above others, as the country is so split right now.
The system is worse for third party candidates (especially if a STV or ranked system was used. This would also please the Bernie or bust folk).
The system is outdated, it was meant to have a group of well informed electors make the decision about who is president. This doesn't makes sense anymore as the electors are pretty much bound to the will of the states popular vote, and people have access to more information. Plus the whole safeguard against someone unqualified idea has been tossed out the window now anyway.
It's hard to imagine a democratic system where swing voters don't hold disproportionate power. Rusted-on supporters will support you whatever may come, and the opponents' rusted-on supporters will never support you, so as a candidate you spend more time, effort, and money appealing to the noncommittal folks in the middle...
Even excellent voting systems like Condorcet don't change this particular equation; a hardcore supporter of you just simply doesn't need as much of your attention in an electioneering frame of mind.
This all being said, that doesn't mean the current systems in the US aren't horribly misrepresentative. Gerrymandering is a particular problem there.
I mean, not impossible, but surprising. Where are you located?
* Winner-takes-all means that in any state that is %60/%40, the 40%'s votes don't affect the election at all.
* Congressmen are representing too many people.
If more states worked like Nebraska and Maine, then people in rural counties in California could decide a few seats on the electoral college. And there's an amendment outstanding to change the number of representatives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...
Ranked choice voting is also interesting, but I think not as important right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
But, ditching the electoral college is only a small part of the solution to the core problems in US politics.