I'm not sure I'd choose those three professions myself, but I see what you're saying. We do need the educated and intellectual people as our leaders, especially those who have studied what makes good government. It is a shame that those aren't the people we elect.

Well, the thing is that Democrats and Republicans are more varied than anyone gives them credit for. Anyone can sign up and be a Democrat, and anyone can sign up and be a Republican. The problem is that both parties keep choosing bad candidates for leadership roles. Of course, that's sort of a good move on the party's part because it is rare that a good candidate could actually win an election. Instead of choosing good candidates, they're choosing candidates they think the people will elect (bad candidates).

Not all republicans and democrats would be corrupt leaders. I know this because I am a registered democrat, and I would not be a corrupt leader. But do I have a chance at ever getting elected for a federal office? Not really. I'm in a minority sexual orientation with a minority religion, and either one of those is enough to disqualify me in itself, even though neither one should matter to the public at all.

Yet let's say that weren't the case. I still wouldn't have a chance because I'm likely to say more good things than bad about my opponents. And even if I compromised those values in order to win the election, I wouldn't have enough money to get my name known in the first place.

You see, none of those problems are actually problems with my stance on the issues or my ability to determine what the best form of government is. Those things aren't what actually determine whether I'll be elected. What we really need is a system where people are elected based on their knowledge of good government instead of whatever arbitrary factors are important to the majority.

Do you think you'd make a good elected official? If so, ask yourself why you'd never get elected, and you might see part of the problem.

So it isn't necessarily problematic that we only have Democrats and Republicans. Good candidates can join either one of those parties. The problem is that neither one of those parties will ever give that good candidate the chance to be elected, even if he joins them. And the reason they won't do it is because a good candidate wouldn't get elected by the people.

So if we add more parties, why should we expect those new parties to put forth good candidates, when it isn't the good candidate who gets elected? It's the people who play the political game the best who get elected, and additional parties will either put forth candidates good at playing that game, or they will put forth candidates that lose the election.

The real problem we face is creating a system where the good candidate is elected. And that's what the electoral college was intended to fix: if we have a small group of informed people choose the president, they'll be more qualified and likely to choose a good candidate.

So if we're looking at a method of reforming the election system, we must address the real problem: that the candidates who win are the ones who play the political game the best, not the ones who will do the best job.

Not a problem, of course. The year the electoral college was created doesn't really matter: it is the reasons for its existence that matter. And those reasons are found in the Federalist Papers from back in the late 1700's.