Time and again I have heard the complaint that the last election became a choice between two unpopular candidates What if you did away with "primaries" and instead had "preferential voting" where you can number the candidates in order of preference from 1 - 50 with the added option of "NTO". "Never That One". There are several ways to go about it as the wiki link shows https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting You can still keep the "two party preferred" option by having an "above the line or below the line" option which allows you to choose EITHER one of the major parties OR individual candidates - we use THAT one for the senate We have altered out voting methods a couple of times but mostly in and around the preferential system. Quite frankly I enjoy preferential voting I always start with the one I dislike most and work backwards - although that sometimes leaves me with an option that has me asking for a new ballot
Primaries are controlled by the parties. The parties decide for themselves how they will handle things. The masses do not make the party rules. The parties are not going to be inclined to let people who are not members of the party be on their primary ballots.
And this may be a reason to get rid of the very expensive round of "primaries". Now I cannot find it but I did read where preferential voting is mathematically the same as the US primaries - so instead of an interminable round of voting (which the rest of the world might thank you for the quiet on the news front lols) you get a one off vote. Keep it simple Mind you I also prefer the idea of a "prime minister" over that of "president" Advantage: Prime Ministers since they are voted for by the majority party can be tossed out at any time Disadvantage: See above but usually they are tossed because they are unpopular which means it is not really an issue since we did not like them to begin with
I have always thought that there ought to be 3 parties, and the number of senate and house seats each party gets is the same, so to get anything done, 2 of the 3 parties (or an equal number of individual members) would have to cooperate and compromise to get anything done. The President would be a pure popular vote selected from a choice of 3 candidates, one from each party. Something needs to change - Independent candidates stand no real chance of getting elected. The last challenge by Ross Perot resulted in rare cooperation between the Ds and Rs, in that they agreed they had to prevent a third choice and made it harder for a third party to get traction. I have voted every time since 1968, voted for Independents 3 x (Perot 2x and J. Anderson) and only in 2008 and 2012 did the candidate I voted for become president.
As I said - because it is compulsory for us they make the voting simple and short - but everyone does turn up or gives a good reason not pay the fine (i.e. Not in the country) Voters at the Bondi voting booth
Americans would start a revolution if we were forced to vote. Americans don't want to be forced to do anything; that's in our genes.
We are forced to do things already. Pay taxes, pay for SS, register for the draft, and I am sure there are more I'm not interested in thinking up. We should be forced to vote.
It has advantages - first is that voting records are far more reliable and therefore harder to commit fraud Second EVERYONE votes - well they turn up at least but it does ensure that everyone has at least some say Third - they have to keep the voting simple - no pages of information and multiple votes for multiple people in different jobs One vote house of reps one vote senate - federal - state and then local elections - works out roughly voting once a year only
Why would you want people to vote who have never heard of the Civil War? Or don't know our capital is Washington, DC? Or who think Elvis Presley was a U.S. president? They're out there. Millions of them.
We have people that ignorant too - in fact we even have people who think Trump will be a good president for America But talking to some of the members on this board - you have people who do not even understand the laws of gas diffusion and THEY vote!!!
If the goal is to reduce the cost of primaries (and therefore the influence of outside sources), then just ban all political contributions from people or entities that are not constituents of the candidate. If a congressional candidate can only accept contributions (money, tv time, etc) from people living in her district, then she will have to address her constituents desires. Michael Bloomberg, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, can't buy their way into an election.
You're not gonna fix representative democracy. The idea that there can be representation with all these people over these vast swaths of territory is laughable in the first place. The idea that we need to be making up laws out of whole cloth is laughable to anyone who stops long enough to reflect on it from outside the box. I'm sure it feels nice to run down a list at voting time, knowing that your counterparts over here are stuck with their one of the two parties they have to choose from, but I don't even need to ask to know that the rationally ignorant of your fellows are doing a better job of acting in their own best interest than any of the politically active among us.
I believe that if there was an IQ test given before a voting card was issued, half of the people in this country couldn't vote. But, in fairness, you don't have to pass one to pay taxes. Nor do you have to be nice or moral, or a Republican. Or even sane. So, I guess they have the right to vote too.
My favorite way of throwing a wrench into the vote 2 simple changes that hurt no one but the parties. 1. Ballots have the candidates names in alphabetical order. No mention of party or incumbency. 2. The only requirement to be on the debate stage is the mathematical ability to receive 269 electoral votes. No matter how long of a shot it is, as long the candidate is on enough state ballots to get to 269, they get on the stage.
