A better way...

[jayem]

to nominate Presidential candidates is by a national primary election. All contenders, from every party or independents, who can qualify for each state’s ballot, will run against each other in a primary election sometime in the summer. There may be 20-30 or more names on the ballots. Using the ranked choice method, voters designate their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th preference, or as many they wish to rank. The 2 most preferred candidates nationally become the nominees. They choose their running mates, and the campaigns proceed to the Nov. election as is done now. They could be from the same party, or different parties. An incumbent President seeking re-election will in all likelihood be one of the top 2 choices. But s(he) will have to compete for the nomination in the national primary like all the others.

Pluses: A far more orderly process. No more individual state primaries or caucuses. No more complications like “super-delegates” Most importantly, this negates the influence of party activists and political “bases” in determining who runs for President. The Dem. and Repub. parties can still hold conventions and designate their preferred candidate. But the voters at large have the final say. Which is as it should be.

Minuses: The cost of a national primary election. Which includes a voting system which will require user training, and secure software in every state to ensure accurate results. And intense resistance from the 2 major parties. Who will never willingly surrender their control over who runs for President. But eviscerating their power is the point.
.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Bernie Sanders wants a ranked system. I see no reaosn we can't just have a domocratic national election for both the primaries and general election like with every other elected office.

Whatever they do, caucuses have to be outlawed. If every state had a primary, we would have no ballot counting problems. More people would be able to vote. Those meetings are so outdated.

 

[SeventyOne]

So, Republicans and Democrats would no longer be able to determine the nominees of their parties, and you've just forever wiped out any nominee from any other group. That's not a better plan.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Iowa and Nevada clearly need to switch to having their Secretary of State control primary elections, not a party-run caucus system. Why don't all 50 states run primaries the same way they do general elections in November?

 

[jayem]

So, Republicans and Democrats would no longer be able to determine the nominees of their parties, and you've just forever wiped out any nominee from any other group. That's not a better plan.

As I said, the Democrats and Republicans can still have conventions and designate their preferred nominees. Who will certainly have advantages in money and organization. But the final decision is made by the voting public. What’s wrong with that?

 

[mark46]

I agree with primaries. However, having the state control the system and the vote does not guarantee that there are no problems. First, there are many, many isn dances of states and officers suppressing votes. In addition, there have been many counting problems over the years. There is no better solution, but let's not make believe that this solves much.

.

Whatever they do, caucuses have to be outlawed. If every state had a primary, we would have no ballot counting problems. More people would be able to vote. Those meetings are so outdated.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Did you notice literally everything that went wrong in Iowa came from the Democratic Party? Iowa's SOS, who has very limited control over elections, could not do anything about it. Nevada is the same way, with the Democratic Party, not the Secretary of State, making voters very worried.

 

[zippy2006]

The 2 most preferred candidates nationally become the nominees.

Why two?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Why two?

Because there are only two major parties, of course.

 

[jayem]

Why two?

Because the President should have a mandate. If only 2 candidates are on the ballot, even in a close election, it's almost a mathematical certainty that one will have a majority of the votes cast. I know there will always be some write-in votes for others. But at the national level, this will be insignificant. Ideally, I'd also like to see the EC abolished and the election decided by direct popular vote. Of course, that will require a Constitutional amendment. But how nominees are chosen is not specified in the Constitution, nor codified in federal law. The awkward, problematic, and onerous process we use has developed over time as agreements between states and political parties. Changing it to a much more rational and sensible method, like a national Presidential primary, would just take an updated agreement among the states. Realistically, I don't expect anything like this soon. But maybe 25, 50 years from now...who knows?

 

[GodLovesCats]

People have tried explaining the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to prevent big states from deciding elections, making small states unimportant. But then how do you explain big states having more delegates than small states? That is going to happen anyway; see Florida being the state that determined who won in 2000. I have wanted a Constitutional amendment to abolish the EC since that election.

 

[com7fy8]

A better way...to nominate Presidential candidates is by a national primary election.

What this could be is a popular vote.

But then certain states might monopolize things, by getting control of their many voters, so the little states would be shut out. This is why they have the electoral college > so the little guys don't get shut out by states with lots of votes.

Also > I think there stands the write-in, so with some organization Americans could write in someone not on the ballot, if they really were committed to getting somebody not of a known party.

Just give us your last name, Jayem, and if it went viral enough you could become the next American president without paying a cent for campaigning, if I understand the write-in thing right.

But maybe even a write-in candidate might have to get some number of signatures. I don't know. I think I will try to look this up, on the Net . . .

Ok, I checked > it isn't so easy as I thought. And it can cost a lot of money. And things vary from state to state. Not every state has a write-in option, some number of voter signatures can be required, and there can be an expense for signatures however that works.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What this could be is a popular vote.

But then certain states might monopolize things, by getting control of their many voters, so the little states would be shut out. This is why they have the electoral college > so the little guys don't get shut out by states with lots of votes.

That's not why the electoral college was created. It was intended as a buffer between the common man and the presidency. The founding fathers didn't trust the judgement of the average person.

Also > I think there stands the write-in, so with some organization Americans could write in someone not on the ballot, if they really were committed to getting somebody not of a known party.

Just give us your last name, Jayem, and if it went viral enough you could become the next American president without paying a cent for campaigning, if I understand the write-in thing right.

But maybe even a write-in candidate might have to get some number of signatures. I don't know. I think I will try to look this up, on the Net . . .

Ok, I checked > it isn't so easy as I thought. And it can cost a lot of money. And things vary from state to state. Not every state has a write-in option, some number of voter signatures can be required, and there can be an expense for signatures however that works.

I think write in options and primaries aren't the problem.

I think money and campaign lengths are the problem. I think any candidate should simply have to collect a certain number of signatures to get on the ballot, campaigns should be limited to 6 months before the election....and they should only occur on TV, radio, and internet with all candidates having equal access for free.

This cuts the parties and major businesses out of the campaign and ensure a relatively equal starting point for each candidate. As for the election....we should remove the electoral college, every citizen gets one vote, and whoever has the most votes wins.

Hopefully shorter campaign cycles result in more focus on issues and less on mudslinging.

 

[Richard T]

There are states like Washington, that have a "top two" primary system, which is constitutional but not for a Presidential election. Ultimately, it is the political parties (and the states for state offices) that determine who gets nominated and how it is done. Making an individual state select some national way also violates the state's rights. What is really needed is a constitutional change to a parliamentary system. Any party with X percent (say 5%) would get representatives and those representatives would get to select the President and serve in Congress. Coalitions and compromise would occur more and people would be engaged as their party is more aligned with their beliefs.

 

[mark46]

People have tried explaining the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to prevent big states from deciding elections, making small states unimportant. But then how do you explain big states having more delegates than small states? That is going to happen anyway; see Florida being the state that determined who won in 2000. I have wanted a Constitutional amendment to abolish the EC since that election.

I guess I'll try to explain the compromise of our Founding Fathers.

FIRST, in 2000, you selected FL. I select NH which was won by Bush. Had Gore taken NH, he would have won. Had the Green Party not been on the ballot in NH, Gore would have won. Had the Catholic priests of NH not told people that they were going to hell if they voted for Gore three days before the election, Gore would have won.

With regard to the compromise, the compromise was to have a Senate, with 2 senators for each state, no matter how large the state. Soon, we will reach the situation where 8 states will have 50% of our populations. This was the great compromise, with the representation in the House being determined by population.

The Electoral College simply follows this compromise by having one elector for each senator, and one for each house member. Maine makes this clear by electing their delegates on this basis (2 statewide, and the rest one in each congressional district).

To go to a nationwide popular vote in presidential elections is to abandon this great compromise. Another amendment you might consider is abolishing the Senate which, by its nature, give more power to small states that their populations suggest is fair. FL and NH have the same number of senators.

 

[zippy2006]

As I've posted before, the way to break the D and R parties' hold on the Presidency is to nominate the candidates by the voters in a national primary election. All presidential contenders, from all parties, and independents, will run against each other in a national primary--let's say the week after July 4. Ranked choice voting will be used to determine the results. The 2 most preferred candidates will be the nominees for the general election. They could be from different parties, or the same party, or independents. Whatever the voters decide. The nominees will then choose running mates, and the campaigns will proceed as they do now. The D's and R's can still hold conventions, and designate their preferred candidates. Who will have distinct advantages in funding and organization. But the final decision as to who runs for President is made by the voters. Not by the parties.

I think it is an interesting idea. Some questions:

1. Why have a primary at all? Why not just have your "primary" be the election?
2. Wouldn't 20-30 candidates be overwhelming to voters?
3. Isn't it useful to have the electoral process proceed by stages, with a few candidates being eliminated at each stage?
4. How would this not be a gross violation of the reason for the Electoral College? Wouldn't less populous states be disenfranchised in this kind of primary?​

 

[jayem]

1. Why have a primary at all? Why not just have your "primary" be the election?​

Because I want the President-elect to have a mandate. The primary is really a preference poll. It determines the 2 most preferred candidates nationally. These will be the nominees in the general election. No other candidates will appear on any state’s ballot. With only 2 candidates, the odds are high that one will have a majority of the votes. Which allows him/her to claim a mandate. Write-ins will have to be allowed, but estimating 140 million or so ballots cast nationwide, their effect should be negligible.

2. Wouldn't 20-30 candidates be overwhelming to voters?

A voter doesn’t have to rank every candidate. If he knows and really, really likes Candidate A, he ranks him #1 and he’s done. If another voter really likes B, and kinda likes A, she ranks them #1 and #2 respectively. If another voter knows 10 of the contenders, he ranks them #1 to #10 in order of preference. As I said, the primary can be considered a national preference poll. The computers process all these rankings to determine the 2 candidates who get the highest rankings nationwide. These 2 are the most preferred, and become the nominees.

3. Isn't it useful to have the electoral process proceed by stages, with a few candidates being eliminated at each stage?

Anything requiring multiple sequential elections is too time-consuming. And probably more expensive. It may take longer for a voter to rank several candidates, but it’s better to do it once and be done with it.

4. How would this not be a gross violation of the reason for the Electoral College? Wouldn't less populous states be disenfranchised in this kind of primary?

The EC only applies to the general election. The national primary is just a different way to determine the nominees for the general election. Instead of the parties choosing the nominees, the national electorate does. That’s my goal—to lessen the power of political parties, and strengthen that of the voters.

 

[zippy2006]

Because I want the President-elect to have a mandate. The primary is really a preference poll. It determines the 2 most preferred candidates nationally. These will be the nominees in the general election. No other candidates will appear on any state’s ballot. With only 2 candidates, the odds are high that one will have a majority of the votes. Which allows him/her to claim a mandate. Write-ins will have to be allowed, but estimating 140 million or so ballots cast nationwide, their effect should be negligible.

A voter doesn’t have to rank every candidate. If he knows and really, really likes Candidate A, he ranks him #1 and he’s done. If another voter really likes B, and kinda likes A, she ranks them #1 and #2 respectively. If another voter knows 10 of the contenders, he ranks them #1 to #10 in order of preference. As I said, the primary can be considered a national preference poll. The computers process all these rankings to determine the 2 candidates who get the highest rankings nationwide. These 2 are the most preferred, and become the nominees.

Anything requiring multiple sequential elections is too time-consuming. And probably more expensive. It may take longer for a voter to rank several candidates, but it’s better to do it once and be done with it.

Well I like the idea. There would obviously be arguments about which sort of ranked voting system should be used, and there would need to be transparency (and ideally reproducibility) regarding the actual computer program that tabulates the results. Indeed I think many people would be wary of giving a computer program so much power, but perhaps that could be overcome.

The EC only applies to the general election. The national primary is just a different way to determine the nominees for the general election. Instead of the parties choosing the nominees, the national electorate does. That’s my goal—to lessen the power of political parties, and strengthen that of the voters.

But the delegate system of primaries is not based on simple population representation. As I understand it, it includes something like the Senate representation in the EC which represents a state rather than a population.