This conversation is closed.

Replace the current party primaries with a single General Primary held in June to select the top 3 people we want to see run for President.

The current primary system guarantees a two party stranglehold on the elections that decide who will hold the highest offices in the land. Given that there is no mention of parties or primaries in the Constitution, we should transition to a General Primary system where the country holds a single general primary vote for three candidates for President. Individuals will have to obtain a certain number of signatures on a petition to be placed on the general primary ballot, and voters will be asked to check off the names of three candidates they want to see run. We then hold a General Election in November to choose the winner. This process will not only produce candidates through a more simplistically democratic process than the current primary method of choosing candidates, but it will also gut the power the two major parties currently hold over elections and give moderates an equal opportunity as the most politically polarizing figures. I am open to feedback and suggestions for improvement.

  • thumb
    Sep 28 2012: Our voting system in the US (and almost everywhere else) is called the First Past the Post voting system, and and unintended side effect of FPTP is two dominate political parties. I believe that the Alternative voting system would be the best solution, but a more practical alternative might be simply to have run off elections until one candidate gains a majority, like legislators do now.

    I *highly* recommend these videos explaining FPTP and the Alternative vote.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2012: Some states do something similar now? But not a bad idea.

    Since the major influence on the vote is money I'm not sure it will gut the two existing parties?

    The other problem is that a 3rd party will most likely effect the R candidate as with Perot and Bush. or now with Johnson and Romney, not that Johnson has done as well as Perot, but if he had a chance I would absolutely vote for Johnson.
    • Sep 27 2012: Thanks for the feedback Pat. And after some research I found that you're right, Arizona is apparently putting an initiative on its ballot called Open Elections Open Government, or OEOG. That's pretty exciting because I swear on everything Holy, I have had this idea for a long time now and had no clue it was being considered this election at all. Except they want to have top two candidates, I would like to see at least three options.

      In regards to gutting the power of the two parties, what I mean by that is that if we transition to a process where candidates must obtain a certain number of signatures on a petition instead of determining their viability through a series of party primaries, (*which to my knowledge, were not democratically sanctioned by putting it to a national vote as to whether or not to put them into place), we will achieve a field of candidates consisting of more political plurality than strictly Democrats or Republicans. Remember, the only reason these two parties exist in the first place is because they are in control of the current primary process.

      And I too am considering voting for Johnson. I will make my decision after the debates.
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2012: I'm mostly ignorant on this subject. I would like to read more about why it is a two party system, I know you said because of the primary process, but I need more context. John Smith and Jimmy Strobl have indicated that it is not about money in their countries.