There aren't any clear cut solutions but having votes represent the people better is a starting point

For starters, the winner takes all format of the Electoral College is problematic.  It means a party can game the system by winning a few big states, taking them much closer to 270 than the other.  Yes, apportioning college votes proportionally may make the chance of a hung verdict greater, but that is a risk worth taking because it shows the people don't like either candidate enough (something that is probably true of this election) and would convey to both parties that they need to work harder to find appropriate candidates.

So, in effect, in spite of Trump's low ratings on what do you call it approval/likability, you fear he would win in a no holds barred race.  Seriously, Micky, it pains me to see that in the world's oldest democracy, the politicians don't trust the voters.  We did that here from day 1.  You can say, "Well, look where that got you" but our system not being so elitist was an antidote against completely neglecting the poor and the downtrodden.  Everyone should have a voice.  If you really are a democracy, you have to listen to everyone, including the most racist and bigoted of them.  Suppressing the will of the people for too long will only have repercussions in the end.  Or maybe it won't because I suspect the US is ultimately a CIA state.

Actually the EC is problematic but for the exact opposite reason 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k" rel="nofollow - http://youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Yes, it can be fixed. 

Needless to say this would be a very very difficult, realistically probably impossible, task but of course it can be done. It would just require our will to do so, after discussion and debate and etc like I said, in reality this is most certainly never happening. 

Me personally? A proportional voting, 3+ party system, something done about extreme/political gerrymandering and far more open primaries. Either allowing independents in, letting them change to a party day of, something along those lines. Primaries should all be video recorded, and fully staffed. This sounds almost dumb...but it's true. The stories like 80% of Iowa precincts (or whatever it was) not being fully staffed, the 100,000+ in Brooklyn denied because they were backlogged on registration all these places not having enough ballots, pure shameful lunacy. The 60 voting stations for a 4 million person county, causing 5 hour lines? Yeah no more of that. 

This is for the voting process of course. For politics itself, the $ influence involved has to be removed. 

How on earth this could happen, no idea. Hopefully some of the above ideas, which while difficult could be done, would go a long way. 

Trying to keep things somewhat realistic. While I am for abolishing the electoral college, I see this as perhaps the most improbably feat, and ya know things have worked well for a long time with it, so it's less necessary to me to see it removed. That said I am on paper, for it. 

It was nice to condense random thoughts I've had all over in one post

And I think such actions should be direct if needed. Like, once here someone said they agreed on how the process should be fully staffed and all that, thus "That's why we need to make sure we win" to properly fund the government and etc

I say do it via bill...can't wait for years, or have it randomly cut off with a party change, and frankly I think both parties are equally as likely to uh....take exclusionary efforts, and ya know, part of the funding problem can't be helped. The voting process for what is supposed to be the great democracy, should be fully funded, staffed, and equipped and should be done so without being tied to local budgets and etc

Gotta disagree on several counts Mick.  The last two presidential (and congressional) election cycles were the most expensive in terms of media and promotional spending, so it's hard to argue people are uninformed.  Misinformed maybe, but not uninformed.  And I don't think voters are apathetic either.  We've had a pretty consistent level of voter participation for the past forty years, 50-60%, but the partisanship has grown steadily over that same time period.  You have to go back to the last half of the 19th century to see higher levels of participation, and back then pretty much only Protestant, land-owning white men had the right to vote (more on that in a moment).  And we're certainly not ignorant, at least from a macro-view.  America today has the most well-educated populace in her history, with high-school graduation rates at a near all-time high and enrollment in higher education steadily increasing for the past century.  Partisan politics have gotten uglier over the past few years but this is certainly nothing new for us, one could argue that things were a whole lot uglier 150 years ago when we spent four years killing each other over our sharply-divided political views.

Short of an actual social revolution (which won't ever happen here as American youth seems to not give a sh*t about anything but cars women and the NFL) the system will remain as it is forever. 

So, considering my pessimism, my original "NO" sufficed. 

Let's hope that is the case.

IMHO a major overhaul or revolution of either extreme is unlikely to be successful, simply because the resulting upheaval would never be tolerated by the political elite or the government itself, and would be feared by many citizens.  I'm referring to a dramatic change in our 'system' such as replacing the electoral college with a popular vote; or replacing Congress with a parliamentary system; or major campaign finance reform which would almost certainly require action by the Supreme Court and Congress; or changing the very balance of powers our current three-tiered government rests on; or a Constitutional amendment of any kind; or the emergence of a third or fourth party; or more dramatically an uprising, coup, succession or other civil action.  These things aren't likely to happen and even if they did wouldn't likely solve the root causes of our political problems and would create several new ones.

The problem as I see it is that we have two parties that are becoming more polar while the electorate they're supposed to represent becomes more diverse.  So it may be that there was a time when the majority of voters identified with the ideals and values of one or the other party, but as minorities and women and teens and non-Protestant and non-elite citizens gained the right and the ability to vote, it was inevitable that more and more voters would emerge whose values and interests fell outside the boundaries of one or the other party's platforms.  And that's what has happened.

The solution is obvious, making it happen is the challenge.  The solution is that each party needs to broaden its platform and become more inclusive, but the reality is the opposite is happening.  People like Trump appeal to populist emotions but in reality people on the left & right extremes of his flock will never work together in government or socially, and probably don't even work together on his campaign.  The Republicans give lip service to trying to make themselves more relevant to minorities and young people and non-Christians and immigrants and the working class, but the efforts are disingenuous and tend to be more about trying to get non-standard Republicans to talk, act and think like the old-guard party base.  Hence the jokes about self-loathing Log Cabin Republicans and Hispanic Republicans chanting at rallys "We don't need our kind around here!"

The Democrats aren't much better, as is evidenced by the back-room tactics of the national party leaders to illegally (or at least unethically) manipulate candidate support within their own party prior to the primary, or frankly by even having super delegates in the first place.  Much of the 'embracing' of diversity within the party smells of pandering, especially at the national and candidate level.

Compared to the alternatives I think the safest, most realistic and most likely to succeed solution is to evolve the two established parties to the point where they start to reflect and represent the broad majority of citizens again.  And this doesn't require government, it doesn't require a bunch of money or constitutional amendments.  However, since we can't popularly elect the national leadership of the major parties, it does mean those leaders must to make a legitimate, sincere and concentrated effort to dilute their respective extreme positions along the political spectrum, and members of both parties need to be aggressive in rejecting any extreme positions within their own parties.  Can this be done?  Not sure, but this will be the 10th presidential election I've voted in and I've never seen either party so weak, unpopular or disheveled.  I do have faith that there are enough adults among both parties leaders that we will see some self-imposed reform once the debacle that is Campaign 2016 finally ends.

1. Sometimes their whole focus is one major issue (as in racism and police brutality in BLM). Though you can effect changes in particular areas, there's no actual overriding ideology or plan to change the way the political system works. 

2. The Occupy movement hasn't coalesced into a proper political alternative or at least movement. Narrow-mindedness and lack of any actual political idea other than the 1% denunciation don't help. 

No the system is not fine, not even close

And I do believe I said there is no realistic chance of anything happening but that's why the internet is a great place, the discussion of ideas. Until one of our parties (both are equally like to do it) finally just starts censoring the internet

Like I said the $ influence is really the problem behind many things BUT no way the system will just purge itself of that, so just pondering other tinkerings and stuff to help.