@Robert Gentel,
First, let's eliminate the straw man fallacies you have erected. I made exactly ZERO remarks about first past the post elections. I also made no remarks which make your "traditionalist" slur relevant. Upon what basis do you allege that we are all unhappy with the current system? (I will, however, address the "first past the post issue" below.) I would prefer that you address what i actually write, rather than setting up your favorite straw men.
The electoral college was intended to reassure states with small populations that they would not be swamped by the "big" states (originally, Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania). Furthermore, it is a recognition of the sovereignty of each state. Although the latter issue has been rendered moot by the increasingly imperial federal system of governance, i like the idea for aesthetic reasons--i have no illusions about the ninth amendment, which actually deals with enumerated rights, rather than enumerated powers. The tenth amendment has been held by the courts to be tautology.
The principle fault of the electoral college is the "winner take all" allocation of electoral votes. Only the states can cure this, short of constitutional amendment. Even that would still leave the problem of allocating the two additional electoral votes. Find a good "fix" for that, and you will have "fixed" the electoral college. I don't buy the objection about the inordinate power given to small states by the electoral college (and i am not saying that you have made that argument). In 2000, of the fourteen states having six or fewer electoral votes, Bush won 12 of them. This is the significance of the electoral college which is most significant to me. Furthermore, the evidence is that Bush would have won Florida even with a recount. My only qualms about the Florida situation is the unconstitutional interference of the Supreme Court. I don't know how you'd fix that other than by a constitutional amendment prohibiting their interference in the states' regulations of elections, which would be bizarre, as the constitution already grants the states the power to regulate elections and election procedures.
To my mind, the 2000 election is the best argument for the retention of the electoral college, even though i did not care for the result. That huge swathe of what are now called red states in the center of the country would have been disfranchised without the electoral college (Bush won all of them except New Mexico). I am not overly impressed with appeals to democracy. Democracy is a wonderful thing, at the local level. But at a national level, it can perniciously marginalize geographic regions, political ideologies, ethnic groups and unpopular ideas.
I also consider the existence of the senate to be significant hedge against majoritarian tyranny, but i won't insist upon it, as you did not specifically call for the elimination of the senate.
Objections that first past the post voting will create two party states do not really apply to the United States, which already has a two party system, and not because of first past the post voting. There were six or seven parties running for the presidency in 1860, although only four of them made any real showing. Lincoln won the 1860 election when he debated Stephen Douglas in 1858. I won't bore you with an account of the details, but the upshot was the death of the Whig party and the Republicans and Democrats as the last men standing. If the Democrats had not split, Lincoln would have been buried, and would have been an historical footnote. The Republicans knew that the Democrats would recover after the war, and both parties, understanding electoral politics, took steps to exclude third parties (crucial to the Republicans, who could have withered away in the face of continuing,strong third parties). Really, the Democrats were suckered. They could just have awaited the inevitable death of the Republican Party--Douglas had profited from an unholy alliance with slave state politicians, and the post-war Democrats employed a similar alliance with white racists, who were very popular all over the country. The Republican party, feeling increasingly threatened, responded to voter dissatisfaction by marginalizing and then eliminating the "black Republicans," and then concerted efforts with the Democratic party to keep control of the parties from the top and to eliminate the threat of third parties. This was accomplished through voter registration legislation which tended to exclude the marginally literate, turning a blind eye to Jim Crow policies and the poll tax, registration by party affiliation and the institution of the party primary/caucus method of selecting candidates. The Democrats and the Republicans both succeeded in establishing their political parties by organizing from the ground up. No third party has succeeded since the civil war because they have all been basically cults of personality. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. might have succeeded in 1912 because his popularity was that great, but after he was shot, so were his election prospects. He simply doomed Taft's election prospects, and so Wilson became another of our many minority presidents (about 40% of the vote).
I don't object to tinkering with the first past the post system, but i'm skeptical of the idea that it will improve either democracy or government. Stephen Harper was prime minister of Canada for almost ten years, and never polled even as much as 40% of the vote. That was a result of a multi-party system,, and not first past the post. I don't see how something like proportionality would have changed that.
