Would represent you any better than the Democratic, or Republican party?

Curious why don't you support Jerry Brown 2.0.? I really like to know your opinion.

In the UK and many other European countries, there is indeed a multi-party Parliament system, with (frequently) two or three dozen parties, each of which gets some share of the seats in the legislature.  However, members of Parliament (or whatever name is used to describe the legislature) do not represent specific geographic areas in many of these countries.  You, the voter, walk into a voting booth and check the box or pull the lever for the political party of your choice.  If 30% of the vote goes to the Republocrat party, while 35% goes to the Demopublicans, with scattered smaller percentages going to the rest, then the legislature is going to reflect that.  However, even in the UK, there is still a cutoff value--which if I'm not mistaken is 5%.  If your party only gets 4% of the total votes cast, your party will have no voice in the legislature.  Some countries have even lower cutoffs than that.  I believe Israel's is 1%--which is why they have a 120-member legislature with some ridiculously large number of parties, many of which have only one or two elected members--but each of those one-person delegations gets to be Minister of Something-or-Other, in order to build the coalition that brings the magic number of 61 for a governing coalition.

Contrast with the USA where Senators represent the interests of an entire state, and Representatives are there to look after the interests of even smaller districts within those states.  We don't elect our Senators and Congresscritters "at large" (as many European countries do)--the original intent was to have Senators be something on the order of today's UN Ambassador, representing the interests of your State before the Federal Government, and Congresscritters were intended to be directly representing the People.

With a country as vast and diverse as the United States, it is necessary to have a system in place where the interests of the People, those of the States, and those of the Nation are all organized differently, so that each can act as a check on the free and unfettered use/abuse of power of the others.

Does the US/Federalist system "get it wrong" sometimes?  Of course.  But European-style governments are not without their own flaws as well.  Hitler was elected "democratically".  The National Socialist party consistently drew the largest amount of votes in the tumultuous series of German elections in 1932 and '33--never a majority, but ultimately able to form a governing coalition with the Communist party in order to make Hitler the Chancellor (and ultimately Fuhrer).

France has had a rough go of things at several points in its history, and is currently going through another one.  The Le Pen/National Front movement (sort of a neo-Nazi party) is making great strides at present, and may come to dominate France in the near future.  Ditto for troubled Greece and its' "Golden Dawn" party (surely a neo-Nazi party--just look at their swastika like emblem).

Just as a general matter:  Putting together these kinds of governing coalitions often gives too much relative power (in the form of key ministries) to the smaller parties, just to secure the coalition of the one or two large parties that make up the bulk of the majority.  This is why we frequently see dissolutions of Parliaments in the UK, Italy, Israel, etc--a Prime Minister pushes an issue to the edge, calls it a "vote of confidence", the vote fails, the governing coalition is dissolved, and it's back to the drawing board as new elections are now needed.  It's hard enough to get Americans to tune in and pay attention every other November; how well do you think we'd do if we had elections every six or twelve months?  That early November thing is kind of baked into the DNA of Americans now.  You'd never be able to change that.

The two-party system has its flaws as well.  The main "flaw" though, is that as national parties, they each have a tendency to compete for constituencies as new issues are presented.  Inside the Republican party, you have Rand Paul-libertarian-neo-isolationist types, John McCain/Newt Gingrich "big government conservative" types, John Bolton "aggressive projection of American power" types, various social conservatives, etc.

Democrats have the same problems, as they need to promote their brand as the party of the "little guy," the underdog, reaching out to various identifiable special interests (many of which are actually in conflict with one another), and at the same time sucking in enough money from their deep-pocketed donors in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and AFL-CIO to stay in the game.  Both parties run a very delicate balancing act, and it is totally consistent with the nature of American politics for each party to seek out new constituencies at the expense of potentially forsaking older ones.  Look at what a bizarre party the Democrats of 1940s-1960s was:  The southern Democrats were the worst kinds of racists, fervent believers in segregation, and overall fairly "conservative", while their northern brethren were "progressive" and "liberal".  A perfect example of this would be Senator Strom Thurmond, who started his political career as a Democrat, and ended it as a Republican.  The Democrats had embraced so many new constituencies and ideologies that Strom no longer felt at home in his own party

A self-identified "Democrat" of the 1880's would be horrified to see what had become of his party in the 21st century.  I suspect the same would be true of a "Republican" of that era who was suddenly transplanted to today.

[Speaking of which:  Have you ever looked at the issues which divided the "Federalists" and the "Republicans" of the early 1800s?  I've tried repeatedly to figure out which party I would have identified with, had I been alive then.  I can't decide for the life of me...I guess you just "had to be there".]

The kind of pre-voting for 2nd and 3rd choices that is suggested is not necessarily such a great system.  It too produces aberrations of various types.  And somehow, I suspect that Willy wouldn't be quite as fond of the "Vermont system" if it had instead produced a far-right Senator, rather than a far-left one.

And just for the record, within some states and some cities, there are all sorts of other systems for electing public officials:  There are non-partisan elections.  There are elections for city Mayors or County Executives where an outright majority is not required but something more than a simple plurality is necessary--often 40% is the threshold amount, so if no candidate gets over that amount, the top two face each other again in a runoff election.  There are other examples, but I'm too lazy to dig them up right now.

btw, we have had quite a few non-majority Presidents.  These include Polk, Taylor, Buchanan, Lincoln (first term), Garfield, Cleveland (second term), both terms of Woodrow Wilson, Truman ('48), Nixon (first term), and both terms of Bill Clinton.  All of these guys received more votes than any other candidate (a plurality), but not a majority.  This is to say nothing of candidates who got fewer popular votes than some other candidate but still were elected President (John Quincy Adams, Grant, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush).

So all of this whining about "51% of the vote = 100% of the power" is not quite true.