Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I'm going to fix the US system.
Each party nominates some number of candidates, lets say 5, whatever. Voters then pick their choice from those 10(or probably more with independents). The person with the most votes wins. That's actually it. Bam. Fixed. Hillary or Trump wouldn't have to be their parties nomination, the people could actually choose form a more diverse slate of candidates. Also, no more electoral college. Now, if you wanted to get more nuanced(which may be necessary, I dunno I just thought about this 3 minutes ago) you could have the person who got the most votes representing the party that got the most votes be the winner. Just so you don't get a popular blue guy winning when the red party overall got more votes. Ya, lets do it that way.
Now, you may be thinking that's what the primaries for, and they pick the best candidate to put forward. But they clearly don't and people are left with a choice between a giant ###### and a turd sandwich. The primaries are also all over the map, so some regions end up deciding for the whole country,
and since they don't vote at the same time, it causes issues of fairness.
|
Trump would win in a pool of 10 candidates without a ranked ballot.
I think simple things like open primaries would solve a lot of issues of extremism. Also the California house system of 1 primary for all the parties and the top 2 regardless of affiliation go onto the general.