How can you hope to change your result if you don't change your systems?
Other than campaign financing, the system is in place for more than two serious candidates. Put a cap on spending for each political office and then perhaps an independent would stand a chance.
The nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics estimates spending on the Clinton-Trump contest at more than $2.65 billion, actually down a bit from $2.76 billion in 2012 when Democratic incumbent Barack Obama defeated Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
Unless you are a part of the current two party plutocracy, you don't stand a chance. Capping the presidential campaign spending at say $100 million, may allow other voices to be heard and serious campaigns by other independent candidates. But, don't expect the 2 party plutocracy to allow that to happen. Current politics is just like any other large business; they enjoy the monopoly they have.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 12 jurisdictions possessing 172 electoral votes, including four small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC), four medium- size states (CT, MD, MA, WA), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA). The bill has passed a total of 36 legislative chambers in 23 states—most recently by a 21-14 vote in the Connecticut Senate, a 40–16 vote in the Arizona House, a 28–18 vote in the Oklahoma Senate, a 57–4 vote in New York Senate, a 37–21 vote in Oregon House, and a 26-16 vote in the New Mexico Senate. A total of 3,112 state legislators have either sponsored or cast a recorded vote for the bill.
The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., state laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state).
Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored.
State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Also, because of state winner-take-all statutes, five of our 45 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide. The 2000 and 2016 elections are the most recent examples of elections in which a second-place candidate won the White House. Near-misses are also common under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....” The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in 1789.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact would not take effect until enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). Under the compact, the national popular vote winner would be the candidate who received the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) on Election Day. When the Electoral College meets in mid-December, the national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of the enacting states.
The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.
National Popular Vote’s Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA).
Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and at www.NationalPopularVote.com. The Only States That Received Any Attention in the 2012 General-Election Campaign For President Were States Within 3% of the National Outcome
The states are listed below in order of Romney’s 2012 percentage—with the most Republican (red) states at the top.
The second column shows the total number of general-election campaign events for each state (out of a nationwide total of 253). As can be seen, the only states that received any campaign events and any significant ad money (third column) were the 12 states (shown in black in the middle of the table) where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican—that is, within 3 percentage points of Romney’s nationwide percentage of 48%.
The fourth column shows donations from each state.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
