A better way?

Why have a party system at all? Louisiana holds open elections for state offices. If no candidate gets a majority in the first election, the top two enter a runoff. This means the final election could be between two Republicans, two Democrats, one of each or independents. Without a primary system, the candidates could appeal to the entire country and not have to please the radical groups that swing the party votes. As it stands now, we have little chance of getting a moderate in office whose views represent the center of American politics. Think of this as the Lieberman proposal.

I think we could tweak the current system by incorporating a first choice and second choice, so that if the first choice loses or drops out, the second choice votes could be counted, and so on. I would need to look into just how this could work, but it has been proposed for the general election, so that if a candidate's first choice votes come in third, the second choice candidate votes are counted. This allows people to vote for the candidate they truly favor, without potentially wasting their vote. Such a system could have possibly averted the Clinton election victory via the Perot voters.

engineer wrote:

Why have a party system at all? Louisiana holds open elections for state offices. If no candidate gets a majority in the first election, the top two enter a runoff. This means the final election could be between two Republicans, two Democrats, one of each or independents. Without a primary system, the candidates could appeal to the entire country and not have to please the radical groups that swing the party votes. As it stands now, we have little chance of getting a moderate in office whose views represent the center of American politics. Think of this as the Lieberman proposal.

Post-Katrina New Orleans and the Long Family are the main reason why Louisiana should never be the model for the nation to emulate.

Furthermore, I don't see where it is constitutional for any government to regulate the operations of political parties or impose candidacy qualifications that are over and above the constitutional requirements to hold office.

I think we could tweak the current system by incorporating a first choice and second choice, so that if the first choice loses or drops out, the second choice votes could be counted, and so on. I would need to look into just how this could work, but it has been proposed for the general election, so that if a candidate's first choice votes come in third, the second choice candidate votes are counted. This allows people to vote for the candidate they truly favor, without potentially wasting their vote. Such a system could have possibly averted the Clinton election victory via the Perot voters.

I agree that governments should not have any control over parties, but parties should not have any control over the ballot.

okie wrote:

I think we could tweak the current system by incorporating a first choice and second choice, so that if the first choice loses or drops out, the second choice votes could be counted, and so on. I would need to look into just how this could work, but it has been proposed for the general election, so that if a candidate's first choice votes come in third, the second choice candidate votes are counted. This allows people to vote for the candidate they truly favor, without potentially wasting their vote. Such a system could have possibly averted the Clinton election victory via the Perot voters.

What kills all these proposals is the electoral college. As long as that is in place, you're stumped. One candidate almost always gets 50% in any given state.

engineer wrote:

I agree that governments should not have any control over parties, but parties should not have any control over the ballot.

Parties should have absolute control over their candidate-nominating process and if this involves a primary election ballot, so be it. Parties have a right to protect themselves from the machinations of each other. Suppose Republicans could have voted in every Democrat Party presidential primary in 2004 and they all voted for Kucinich when they all intended to vote for George W. Bush that November.

Let everyone of both parties compete on the same ballot. If no one gets 50%, the top two move on to a runoff. That seems to work in a lot of places where party affiliation is not important. Many local elections are conducted like this.

flaja wrote:

engineer wrote:

I agree that governments should not have any control over parties, but parties should not have any control over the ballot.

Parties should have absolute control over their candidate-nominating process and if this involves a primary election ballot, so be it. Parties have a right to protect themselves from the machinations of each other. Suppose Republicans could have voted in every Democrat Party presidential primary in 2004 and they all voted for Kucinich when they all intended to vote for George W. Bush that November.

Parties are crucial to forming the framework of policy, from which candidates emerge. I used to say, amen, when someone said they vote for the man, not the party. Now I realize, maybe if its dogcatcher or county clerk or something, but if you send a good Democrat to Washington, the first thing the party does is take them out behind the woodshed and give them a talking to, toe the line or else. Whether anyone realizes it or not, yes you vote for the party many times whether you think its for the man or not, but the best time to get the best man is in the primary process.