Plurality Voting

Plurality Voting is the word I was looking for.  Wikipedia has an excellent introduction.

Also called First-past-the-post voting (FPTP), which has a separate, but very similar, Wikipedia page.

I have always found the etimology of FPTP baffling, because there is no fixed post.  There is no requirement that the winner have an absolute majority or more than 50% of the actual votes, let alone 50% of the votes of the eligible voters.  All that is needed to win is a plurality of the votes actually cast, that is, more votes than anyone else.  (I believe FPTP is a racing metaphor, but it still eludes me.)

I liked the term Winner Take All, but that appears to be reserved for when there is more than one person being elected (so there is an all to take and not just a one), such as a district with more than one seat.  I am unfamiliar with any so strictly defined winner take all districts.

Technically correct synonyms for plurality voting include single-choice voting, simple plurality, relative majority, and   simple majority.

Plurality Voting systems can only be changed by changing the laws which enact them.  This is possible (and has sometimes been done) in US States.  Meanwhile, the voting system for the US President cannot be so easily changed (it would require a constitutional ammendment in which numerous smaller states give up their present advantages for the greater good--and as long as nearly all smaller states don't give up their present advantages, agreements among other states don't do any good either).  But note that the Presidential election is not a strictly defined plurality system either--that's only what many fair minded people would like it to be (compared with the current small-state-biased Electoral College, which was a compromise made at the US Constitutional Convention, primarily to satisfy the fears of Slave States).

Given a single choice, there is no reasonable and reasoned approach to voting other than Tactical Voting--which means compromising your vote by not necessarily voting for the candidate you like most, but voting for one of the two candidates most likely to win.  The Wikipedia pages above describe the considerations involved.

Though this might not always be the case, in the US, in the 2020 Presidential Election (and all other US elections I am aware of) there is no serious question as to which are the two candidates most likely to win.  They are the Democratic and Republican candidates.

Even if we could abolish the Electoral College and replace it with the direct popular election of the US President (as James Madison himself preferred) we would still not eliminate the fact that it is a single choice for which tactical voting considerations apply.  The only way to eliminate the need for tactical considerations on the part of individual voters would be to make the selection of the Chief Executive a job for the legislative assembly--the so-called Parliamentary System.  But that does not eliminate the tactical considerations either, it simply moves them upwards to another body of voters--the members of Parliament (who might have themselves been selected by FPTP means).

The ultimate system for permitting pure choice voting (and not tactical) would seem to be the combination of Proportional Representation for electing legislators combined with the Parliamentary System for selecting the chief executive by the legislative body.  This is in fact the combination which exists in Israel and New Zealand, and it has as many critics as defenders.  It typically results in many small uncompromising parties (reflecting their uncompromising voters) where small parties often appear to have impact far exceeding their voter base.  It often results in dysfunctional coalition governments where parties combine at the executive level because no single party can win, and at the same time, they have no incentive to compromise either.

A longstanding criticism of proportional representation I have heard is that it leads to people being entirely polarized and uncompromising.  Strangely, the US system has also led to a frightening degree of polarization as well, but without the "benefits" of being able to vote for your ideal.

How all these low level political design features relate to the high level corruption of all existing systems, which use mind controlling media and intellectual development systems would require a much longer and deeper essay.  But I don't think it changes the essence of all political systems--compromise.  It only means that given your lack of relative power and wealth, you will have to compromise even more, or get even less.

Many ultra-left voters, defined as those who refuse to vote for the largest "center-left" party, propose that the establishment duopoly is the root of all evil.  Under present circumstances, perhaps it is, but minimizing the requirements for advancement of small political parties is also a leading factor in the rise of the ultra-right, i.e., fascists.  Meanwhile, the parties responsible for the rise of Social Democracy in the 20th century were entirely majoritarian center left parties, not fringe parties at all.  Even Communist governments were not empowered by far left movements, but from majoritarian popular movements.  Trotskyism and the ultra-left generally have no history of success anywhere.  All the better, perhaps, in the eyes of their advocates who do not have to distance themselves from any unpleasant histories, except the singular history of having accomplished nothing.