Why nominate candidates who can discuss issues and their solutions to those issues when there are so many shenanigans that can be played to win the Blue v Red game.
Yet the American people continue to elect the least qualified candidates presented to them. All of the avowed Democrats and Republicans need to participate in their party's primaries rather than allow 20%+/- of the party elect their general election candidates.
Anybody who participates in a primary, and gains 10% voter support or more should be able to transfer their votes to whomever they feel represents what they ran on. That way, in a 10 candidate field, you do not choose someone with 20% or less support. The party maintains dicipline and can not be taken over by a minority with ideas that do not match the party. Yes, there would be a lot of horse trading. But any Pol who abused the privilege would hear from voters and be refused advancement.
As far as ordinary voters go, politicians would do a better job of assessing their competitors, what they stand for, and loyalty to core party principles. Anybody dropping out, or forced out, needs to choose his friends carefully. Similar policies is a good criterion, and would help his career.
The incentive structure for politicians to pick who "their" voters go to is far too easy to abuse in this scenario and creates incentives for candidates to enter, not to win, but to win just enough votes to sell to the highest bidder.
Setious election shenanigans were evident in Rome right before Caesar tried to take power and was assassinated, effectively ending the Republic phase of Rome.
I am changing my name to Dan Sullivan.
But is it "Dan Sullivans" OR "Dans Sullivan"?
I AM DAN SULLIVAN!
Why nominate candidates who can discuss issues and their solutions to those issues when there are so many shenanigans that can be played to win the Blue v Red game.
Because winning is better than governing.
And it's more fun.
Yet the American people continue to elect the least qualified candidates presented to them. All of the avowed Democrats and Republicans need to participate in their party's primaries rather than allow 20%+/- of the party elect their general election candidates.
Anybody who participates in a primary, and gains 10% voter support or more should be able to transfer their votes to whomever they feel represents what they ran on. That way, in a 10 candidate field, you do not choose someone with 20% or less support. The party maintains dicipline and can not be taken over by a minority with ideas that do not match the party. Yes, there would be a lot of horse trading. But any Pol who abused the privilege would hear from voters and be refused advancement.
Might as well just implement ranked-choice voting.
As far as ordinary voters go, politicians would do a better job of assessing their competitors, what they stand for, and loyalty to core party principles. Anybody dropping out, or forced out, needs to choose his friends carefully. Similar policies is a good criterion, and would help his career.
The incentive structure for politicians to pick who "their" voters go to is far too easy to abuse in this scenario and creates incentives for candidates to enter, not to win, but to win just enough votes to sell to the highest bidder.
NO THANKS.
Or approval.
Setious election shenanigans were evident in Rome right before Caesar tried to take power and was assassinated, effectively ending the Republic phase of Rome.