It's rather pathetic when the media is thrown into a tizzy because one caucus (from a demographically atypical state) and one primary (from a demographically atypical state) haven't yet produced a clear winner for either Democrats or Republicans.
Heavens - that might mean people in the rest of the country might actually have an opinion we'd have to pay attention to!
Not very likely, with the megagiant ultrahuge multistate primary coming up early next month.
Sometimes I think presidential elections should be like orchestra auditions: each politician can stand behind a screen, and they can answer relevant questions (with their voices electronically altered), so people can actually vote for positions they agree with, rather than "who they'd like to have a beer with" or other such bullshit.
Of course, there are still only two parties, and still a winner-take-all, simple majority vote. And the electoral college...don't get me started. When the best argument to be mustered for a process is that it encourages politicians to actually pay attention to people (which is to say that they wouldn't do so otherwise), you know the system's broken.
Incidentally, while I think Larry Sabato, author of the article linked above, has some intriguing ideas, I disagree strongly that preventing the emergence of multiple parties has been primarily a force for, or motivated by, "stability" - if so, single-party rule would be even more "stable," no? Instead, the two-party system has made millions of Americans give up on politics, since their views aren't represented. It may not be efficient - but a parliamentary system, in which multiple parties, elected in proportion to the extent each one's ideas are popular among voters, must form temporary coalitions to get things done, is far more democratic and truly representative of public opinion.