I don't think it's ineffective.

Consider that the electorate is fairly evenly divided between Dems and Republicans. So it takes the mass of voters who are "undecided" in any presidential election to swing the majority (ignoring the electoral college). It begs the question: How can anyone be "undecided" knowing that the Republicans favor the rich and "trickle down" philosophy and the Democrats are the party of socialist issues? Who is so dull that they do not know that and just vote relative to their predisposed party affiliation? The answer would seem to be the dullest of the electorate who are swayed by demagoguery and hyperbole. In other words, people who are not intelligent enough to know what each party's agenda is, are the ones who actually choose the winner.

As was once said, "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in". Career politicians dominate governments and often those people think they know better than anyone else with qualifications and experience in a particular field. The current USA government is a case in point and the UK government isn't far behind.

I voted "effective"--but that requires an educated, engaged electorate. It is our responsibility as rationalists to educate those around us as much as we are able.

there is too much corruption and things hidden from the voters so I don't get involved. you can't hold me responsible for these professional highly paid self-serving liars.

Just look at some of the leaders we have had in Oz in recent years,