So we are basically agreed? You call it 'runoffs' I call it 'ranked-choice'. Same difference?How would that change our 2 party system? We would still be at the mercy of big political machines.
Not quite.
If you have a system with runoffs, people can vote for a third party in the first round. In the second round, those voters would have to be appealed to in the runoff. It would be a way to get their issues to the fore.
Again, using the reform party as an example. In 1992, they got 17% of the vote. Their two main issues were opposition to NAFTA and deficit reduction. In 1996, they got 8% of the vote. In both cases, they polled a lot higher but at the end, voters figured they couldn't win any electors and threw in with one of the "two evils".
By 2000, the Reform Party was a bag full of matching funds that Pat Buchanan was able to grab up before the Transcendental Meditation people did.
The problem with third parties is that they are often seen as spoilers, rather than legitimate political movements. People STILL blame Perot for Clinton. People still blame Ralph Nader for Bush. Runoffs would eliminate that blame.