Well, I think a lot will depend on what Assange has up his sleeve against Hillary and whether or not Johnson makes it to the debates. These are two big variables. Also if Trump really steps into it during the debates, the RNC might want to do damage control and replace him.. now that would be interesting. 

Johnson may have sealed his own political downfall when he didn't know what Aleppo was.

Even if the electorate were unaware of that ignorance, the other candidates will publicly vilify it as being a fatal mistake.

Of course Johnson wasn't wearing an almost invisible earpiece, getting his answers fed to him.

I wish it were as simple as testing voters on their knowledge of the issues and their intelligence but I think there's some type of law that prevents this from happening.  

Kidding aside, I imagine we have to change some of our laws regarding the eligibility and requirements of candidates.  That's the easy answer.  I think the difficulty lies in what "we" the voters want from our candidates.  Until we decide what we want we'll be forced to conform and accept the candidates that are out there.  

Kidding aside, I imagine we have to change some of our laws regarding the eligibility and requirements of candidates.  That's the easy answer. 

I disagree. If it were that "easy" it would have been done decades ago. 

I think both liberals and conservatives would agree that we should change laws re: eligibility-- and be only too happy to suggest changes. But here's the problem: I'd bet that, strange as it may seem, conservatives might come up with some decent-sounding plans (that would coincidentally make the qualifications easier to meet for conservatives). And liberals might come up with some decent-sounding plans (that would coincidentally make the qualifications easier to meet for liberals...).

Dear Deplorable Krishna - Sorry I wasn't clear.  Let me see if I can clean it up a bit.  I didn't say it was "easy".  I said it was the "easy answer".  We know the answer we just can't get there.  

"Some type of Law" that prevents this -

Now that is Civil War Era duplicitously   until LBJ made it disingenuously

Unconstitutional,

but then that was the point then & now huh!?

Pea soup anyone

What if anything do you think we could do to correct this problem so that we never have to be left with a choice like this again?   

Because money and legislators, most of whom are attorneys, and, virtually all of whom have, as their primary objective … RE-ELECTION … changing the two-party system represents to those within the parties, an inherent CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS.

Given that reality, Boobus americana bitches about it on the one hand, while, out of ignorance and stupidity, supports and sustains it with the other hand.

Myopic fools who vote race, religion, gender and/or special interests, these instead of utilitarian and pragmatic issues, get what they deserve; BUT THOSE OF US WHO DON'T VOTE THAT WAY, DON'T DESERVE THE OUTCOME.

A "dilemma" is defined as … a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.

Between Clinton and Trump, we have a pair of bad alternatives, but their undesirability is not equal IMO.

We have two disingenuous candidates … no argument; BUT ONE IS COMPETENT AND EXPERIENCED, THE OTHER AN UNQUALIFIED, QUESTION/ISSUE-EVADING PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND DOCUMENTED CHEAT OF WORKING PEOPLE, BUSINESS PEOPLE, CHILD CHEER LEADERS, SEEKERS OF HIGHER EDUCATION … AND OTHERS. 

What dumbass buys the barstool bullshit philosophy that he's "going to make America Great Again, that he "Knows more about ISIS than the Generals," etc.?

ONE QUALIFIED BAD CHOICE, ONE NOT QUALIFIED.

Duh!

Dilemma addressed.

As for the question posed in the headline … NO! The two party system is not about to fail us …

It already has … and the same dumb schmucks keep voting in the same candidates, or, candidates who pander to their on-going dumb-schmuck mentality.

Myopic fools who vote race, religion, gender and/or special interests, these instead of utilitarian and pragmatic issues, get what they deserve;

OK. But given that fact, I wonder if anyone actually believes that if we shifted to a multi-party system-- that would change the way those people think? 

For example-- if there were a "multi-party system"-- would David Duke supporters suddenly feel love in their hearts for Blacks and Jews? Would they therefore be able to form coalitions ...and have some of the larger parties be more likely to adopt some of their views?

(P.S: I think the Electoral College should be abolished, but that a different issue...."should"!).

If anyone thinks a so-called "multi-party system" would lead to better government, more rational leders being elected, and a lessening of some people voting based on their bigotry or allegiance to special interests-- do some research! There are some really horrendous governments around the world-- much, much, worse than ours-- that have a multi-party system".

Changing the # of parties won't make any real difference. Why? Because its the values of the people that count. Depending on their cultural values--- you can have a two party system or a 20 party system that's horrendous. Where big lobbies and the military-industrial complex has control....

And you can also have a two party system or a multi-party system that's truly democratic and rational.

I can't imagine any leading party forming a coalition with a David Duke party. However, coalitions have worked positively in Canada in the past, and seem to be a necessity in Israel, although I'm not so happy that in Israel it is the Religious or far right wing parties that have more recently been used to make up the governing coalition there.

I assume that in the USA it is not possible to form a coalition to create the governing combination.

"an inherent CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS."

The lack of integrity in DC is the problem of the jaded, prejudice & down right "internally" ugly!

They seemingly agree that Obstructed "Hope & Change"

duly Voted for Twice was worth Mockery

& now double down on a fascist, misogynistic, Narcissistic Serial Defamer/Bankruptcy filer

(that believes using bankruptcy as an ATM is a sign of Success!!!! )

The phrase "what would Jesus do" was actually a movement started by Charles M. Sheldon & for all the &

"God" this & that

if they were put to the test of "In his Steps" the Stock in Asbestos Pants would go up!!!!!!  

I think your whole electoral system is directed at limiting the opportunity for multiple parties - although other parties exist, they are ignored or ineffective. In a parliamentary system (such as among the British Commonwealth nations) coalitions are possible often leading to more encompassing legislation. Such a system might require a reworking of your electoral college system, and what is most likely required is to educate the electorate to realize that it isn't carved in stone that they have to vote for one of the two historically major parties.

Such a system might require a reworking of your electoral college system, and what is most likely required is to educate the electorate to realize that it isn't carved in stone that they have to vote for one of the two historically major parties.

The electoral college has done just that not just once but 4 times over the years.

1824 John Quincy Adams/Andrew Jackson: Jackson won the popular vote but neither won the electoral votes needed at the time 131 votes. The House of Representatives then voted Adams into office.

1876 Rutherford B. Hates/Samuel J. Tilden: Hayes lost the popular vote to Tilden. The electoral vote was won by Hayes by 1 vote giving Hayes the office.

1888 Benjamin Harrison/Grover Cleveland: Harrison lost the popular vote by over 90,000 votes. The electoral college vote went to Harrison who won 233 electoral votes making him President.

2000 George W. Bush/Al Gore: Al Gore won the popular vote by approximately 540,000 votes. The electoral vote though went to George W. Bush that vote was 271 Bush to Gore's 266. And the rest as they say was history as George W. Bush was named as 43rd President of the United States.

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote

And yet as November approaches our political two party system is forcing us...

What two party system? 

In this election, there are at least 4 parties participating-- and running candidates for president: the Republicans, the Democrats, the Libertarians, and the Green Party. 

And before anyone says the last two don't count remember-- there's a reason for that: not many voters have chosen to support them. 

I started voted Libertarian in the early 80's so I'm way ahead of those that are just now waking up and realizing they've been voting for the wrong party. 

Well as this has plagued some people since 1865, I   @ it even being a Legit Convo , yet having said that.

The process doesn't Exclude other political parties nor is voting the two party Fishbowl some suggest or this article implies!

The Stalin inheritance made/brought & paid for tea con

billmoyers

or the Prostituted arrogance that Randily claims Jesus fisherman instructor status

huffingtonpost

The lessor of Two evils means something different to those who don't have Affluenzic belly aches!

Personally, I long for Thomas Paine Common Sense that engaged the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights & Constitution for All - to moi "PC" isn't 'angry' people

feeling put upon for sitting on their ignart bigotry - until they choke!

Perhaps the place to start is with kicking out lobbied up Citizen's United & giving that access to the Public.

I notice the Angry aren't mad about anything legit or even Constitutional. "We" attempted to take money out & let the bigotryout instead, to get term limits & instead Gerry rigged Local problems with the "fiscally irresponsible/unaccountable, & re-regulate the Financial industry & got

Obstructed - on a bogus " One terming" tour!

Screwed while Millie's were given to corporate farmers, spent in kangaroo congress courts on the Strength of the 'One-Drop' rule objections  

& they took home 8 years of salary -  WTF can be done -

Grow Up!

- past 25 your brain is fully formed, don't like being a grown up - who the heck does, yet the People require the very things those yellowing documents denote

"We"

to show up, turn out & vote, yet beyond that be

Civic minded!

I visited by grand daughter's class as a Veteran a few Veteran's days ago spoke brief & the kids were engaged, as they are regarding the presidential elections & the class adopted an active duty soldier's so children are listening & watching those seeing

bullying/bullies learn to be bullying bullies

(& again some have known that since circa 1865) so to some & esp. the angry LOL

Get on my level

"We" need vigilance against the differences that don't matter & equal Action on those that do

Like -

Off-shored illegal tax havens, undocumented violations (also tax revenue), .1¢ transaction tax on Wall Street & regulating

Give Back Glass Steagall.....

Cuz if you ain't Angry about these things - your part of the problem

Fronting the solution to what ills this Great Country!

Just my lil .2¢