Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 1880's?

I read a biography of Grant recently, holy cow.

The Old Days were perhaps not what we remember.  And the 1980s were not some gracious climate either except between Tip and Reagan.  And yes, the antipathy in public is worse now, egged on by both sides, and that lobby thing.

Some people are results-oriented and others are process-oriented.  Being apathetic because the desired result isn't going to happen in your lifetime is results-oriented.  It may also be described as short-sighted or even selfish. 

Being optimistic of something happening down the road, and believing your actions will continue it (or even accelerate it a tiny bit) down the path is process-oriented.  It may also be described as sacrificial or an investment in our future. 

Reminds me of that ancient Greek proverb:  “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit."

Some people don't give a damn about a great society, just a comfortable life.

Even though I am very much in favor of the electoral college I have to admit you are correct about it does promote a two party system which in turn, I think is ineffective. 
If it meant we could do something different then a two party system then I would be in favor of eliminating the electoral college so for me it’s a little bit of a catch 22 because with a two party system there’s no way I could support illumination of the EC.

There was a great article in The Atlantic Monthly back in December: "Too Much Democracy is Bad for Democracy."  I recommend it highly.
It's about how the political parties have become too democratic and have thus surrendered to the highly energized in both parties to pick the nominees.  So Trump hijacked the GOP and Bernie almost hijacked the Democrats--who oddly are less democratic--in 2016.
I have these additional thoughts.
We weren't designed to be a mass democracy, and, historically, mass democracies have not worked out well.  They generally come to bad ends.
At its core, pure democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Abraham Lincoln would not have won a mass election. And he would not have survived a vote of confidence in 1862 under a democratic parliamentary system.
We were designed to be a republic, as Badge noted.
There are many non-democratic aspects to our constitutional system.  Like the Bill of Rights, rule of law, protection of minority rights, etc.
But apparently we can't keep it.  It requires a people who exercise civic virtue, of which we have little to speak of and mostly don't even know what it is anymore.
We want an Orange Calf or his equivalent in the other party who can get 50%+1 of the people who bother to vote.

Gerrymandering is a big problem.  It's never been a good thing, but now it's gotten so scientific that very few congressional districts are actually in play every two years.  My fix would be to require congressional districts to follow county lines.  Lots less room for mischief then.
State rules--not the EC--are I think the biggest obstacle to third parties.  The two parties have written the rules in all 50 states to make it very hard for third-party candidates to get on the ballots. I don't know what the fix for that is.
I read an advocacy for the EC several years ago.  It went like this:
Imagine the World Series.  We determine it by which team won the most games out of seven.  That's like the EC.  If we determined it by which team scored the most runs over seven games, that would be determining the presidential election by the popular vote.
And the example given was the 1960 World Series, in which the Pirate beat the Yankees despite being outscored 57-27.  Nobody advocated then or advocates now that the Yankees be given the championship because they scored more runs.

But they had the senators elected by the state legislatures, so that's not democracy.
And they had the president elected by wise, competent, civic-minded electors, and that's not democracy.
And they had the Supreme Court justices appointed by the non-democratically elected president and confirmed by the non-democratically elected senators.
And, in the first Congress, they added ten amendments that we call the Bill of Rights and are mostly denials of or restrictions on majority rule.