Presents a reply by the authors to comments by Sullivan and Webster. Both of these comments help to place our article on the red states versus blue states metaphor (Seyle & Newman) into a broader context. In particular, both comments make valuable points about the potential for collaboration between psychology, political science, and political action. Sullivan made two points that address this collaboration directly. First, he pointed out that we failed to acknowledge a book by Morris Fiorina and his colleagues. Second, Sullivan disagreed with our claim that psychologists cannot change the system. Webster argued persuasively that we let the Electoral College off too easy. To support his indictment of the Electoral College, he drew on two compelling sources of evidence. First, because of changes in population distribution, electoral votes appear to play more of a role in the outcome of elections than they have at any time in the past. Second, the weighting system used to determine a state's number of electoral votes has the consequence of underrepresenting minority populations. However, we are less optimistic than Webster that this approach might "eliminate red-blue labeling" (p. 703). Thus, we repeat our original suggestion that the best short-term solution for improving political discourse is to encourage the use of the "purple America" approach.