Choosing in the affirmative is a ranking only in the degenerate sense of the term. In the same sense you could say that a dictatorship is a voting system of one. If that is the only choice you want to make, that's fine, but that's not an argument against trying to capture more information from voters.
The Electoral College doesn't need to change. Please don't argue against positions I haven't taken. I am not a Democrat and do not see this as a partisan issue, and the DNC is likely to view this idea as an existential threat.
Multiple-choice methods of voting have nothing to do with any particular form of government. They are associated with larger numbers of political parties simply in reflection of the fact that people have a broad range of political views. The idea that there should be only two political parties is clearly nonsense, and you yourself can point to many factions and divisions not only within the major political parties but in all walks of life. We have the voting method that we have simply because there wasn't another to choose from in 1780. The fundamental goal of election science is to represent voter preference in as fair and accurate a manner as possible. Unfortunately, it's been mathematically proven that there is no perfect voting method, but the one that we have is one of the worst, and various groups in various countries have been campaigning to end it for years.
Please stop talking about Trump. I have not based any part of my argument on his election. You may not have looked into election science very deeply, but this has been the only political issue I have cared about for just about the last two decades. I think that all options this cycle were bad, and that that represents a failure of our system, but that's also not what's driving my concerns.
America has made itself impenetrable to everything but information warfare, and is an information war there can be no higher target than a major political party headquarters, especially during an election cycle. It takes minimal skill and technology to attempt to hack someone. There is minimal risk of detection. And now someone has shown that it is possible, and that there is very little to fear in the way of repercussions. Getting hacked is going to be massively destabilizing for any organization of any kind, political or not, and I do not see a particularly good reason to let hackers of whatever stripe hijack American politics at their whim.
The nation is in unmatched turmoil because our leaders have to keep splitting us apart with social wedge issues in order to make sure that we vote for the right teams. We are not on opposite teams, we are both citizens who want to make our country better. Across the US people have more in common with each other than that divides them, because that's what it means to be a citizen of a country. We're allowing ourselves to be split into warring camps, but it doesn't have to be that way. This is a way to resolve it. It's not a perfect solution, but I do see this as a vital existential issue for our democracy, and an extremely urgent one. But, all that said, I'm not necessarily enjoying feeling compelled to try to talk the entire country into going with me on this one, and I would be grateful for a better opposing argument, so rest assured that I am giving your opinions their due consideration.
Please also excuse any lack of copyediting in the above, I'm running late for an appointment.