Every side of the philosophical and ideological spectrum has its theory about why there's so much animosity in the country and about who's wrong and who's right. In truth, people aren't going back far enough or looking closely enough to really see where the problems begin.
In this horrifically polarized nation, there is indeed one thing that "liberals" and "conservatives" would benefit from equally and that's the banishment of the Electoral College.
The Regime in Washington does not represent anyone, conservative, moderate or liberal. It is a fascist regime whose interests include world hegemony, resource control and greed.
The real difference between good, patriotic conservatives and good, patriotic liberals can be found in domestic issues. Conservatives basically believe that, if given the chance, the private sector will take care of the citizens of this country. They believe that the central government screws things up too much. They also want to abolish taxes.
Progressives, on the other hand, believe that, even though the wrong central government could, indeed, screw things up, it's still better to let the government monitor and direct the health and welfare of the citizens because the private sector is far too interested in self promotion, profits and, quite frankly, using the population for those purposes.
Banning the E. C. is something that both camps can agree on. A million voter march could be organized in keeping with the million (...fill in the blanks...) marches.
Right now, Libertarians come much closer to the definition of good, patriotic conservatives than Republicans.
Greens and Socialists have more Progressive visions than Democrats.
There's really, with the exception of a very small group of Democrats and/or Republicans, only one party in the FUSA and that's The Corporacracy.
Nationally, both elected branches of government are made up of wealthy people who spend lots of money to gain power. They don't represent their constituents and they certainly don't treat their constituents like the people who hired them. It's very much the other way around. If one ever gets an "audience" with one's legislator, one is either lucky or wealthy.
Elected officials, especially on the national level, were wealthy before they were elected or defeated, they're wealthy after they've been elected or defeated and they're still wealthy when they retire. It seems that they don't even care a whole lot if they win or lose. Witness John Kerry's "concession speech" following the 2004 "election". They see politics as some sort of game and a nasty one at that.
Although conventional wisdom advises individuals to start small and local and banning the E. C. is not small, the E. C. has a trickle down affect. If there are four people running for local dog catcher, a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian and a Green, either the Democrat or Republican will most likely win. Why? Because voters subconsciously figure that the Libertarian and the Green will never have any chance of "playing in the big game", so why waste a vote on them even at the local level?
Add to that the narrow minded mentality of "red" and "blue" and the fact that we call members of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party members of "third" parties, like one might have a "third" eye, and you've pretty much conditioned people to vote either Democrat or Republican. Consequently, the professional politicians have no interest in getting rid of the E. C. In fact, they really do benefit from it.
It seems that most, if not all progressive organizations aren't interested in banning the E. C. However, if the E. C. was banned, "third parties" would be a thing of the past or, possibly, Republicans and Democrats may become third, fourth or fifth parties.