Are there better alternatives to the primaries in the U.S. elections?

  • Have a national 4 round elimination

    First round - as many candidates as want to be considered form each party. The entire country votes on the same day. The top eight finishers from each party move on to round two and have a month to campaign.
    Second round - The entire country votes on the same day, the top four finishers from each party move on to round three and have six weeks to campaign., Everyone get to votes again
    third round - The entire country votes on the same day, the top two finishers from each party move on to round four and have two weeks to campaign.,
    fourth round - the top finisher from each party is the nominee.

  • Yes there are

    Of course there are many great leaders out there but most of them do not have the types of funds that the primaries have to fund the campaign that would be needed and unfortunately most of the time it comes down to a lack of options when it comes to elections.

  • Look at the results of every election

    The statistically average person is quite stupid and uninterested in politics, sadly. Add to this the current selection process for candidates, their affiliation with certain interest groups pulling strings all the time, cronyism and other pathologies. No matter who you choose hardly anything changes and still the same people pull these strings of power people give them. There are many ways to fix this but nothing is being done about that. I wonder why ... :)
    Example: Allow anyone to sign in for elections based on minimal entry criteria. Test all candidates for competencies, skills and will to lead, to select a desired final and large group of best candidates, for example 1,000 people. And this is important - randomly select the winner.
    Above is already much better, because:
    1. Candidates originate from much broader population and there are much more talented people who should run our countries then just in politicians group.
    2. Appropriate tests for signed candidates help to select the best of the best of the group.
    3. Drawing randomly guarantees an equal chance of winning for all selected candidates and prevents people hanging to position of power, accumulating power, using affiliations to gain power, using politics as a job and not a service to people which it should be in the first place, and so on...

  • A better alternative to the primaries would be to have strictly online or news debates, and voting across the country for the elected officials.

    Primaries create a lot of unnecessary spending. Campaigners travel to many different cities and create massive expenses on travel and campaign locations. If debates were strictly online, or on the national news only, then everyone would have the opportunity to hear each candidate's opinion and make informed decisions, while limiting spending.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • Primaries need revision.

    Our current primary system for presidential elections is as flawed as they come. By allowing some states to hold primaries earlier then others we effectively leave our entire electoral process up to these small states and a very small section of voters. It is clear whoever does well in the early primaries gets more campaign money and media coverage.

    Posted by: MarriedKelvin72
  • Yes, because better opportunities lie in the multiple choices our citizens could have.

    In a culture where the government is consistently on trial by society for being too "boys club" or "not for the people", it stands to reason that the people would like more alternatives. Most people grow up knowing that the choices for presidents are decided by their parties, then primaries, and then by us choosing the "lesser of two evils". The average citizen is given few choices, with no real knowledge of the candidates, as their parties have orchestrated all of it. Our country's citizens need better options and ideas put forth, so that we can move forward fairly in a climate that has changed and evolved.

    Posted by: TickoRadcI
  • An open primary because anyone can vote from an political party.

    He earliest Open Primaries in the United States were held in Nebraska and Wisconsin. Open primaries are held for presidential elections in Uruguay starting from the 1996 constitution. In the United States, there are two general categories -- partisan and non-partisan. In the Wisconsin (non-partisan) model, voters were permitted to vote for candidates of any political party, in any race, regardless of party affiliation. This version of the open primary was recently found Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. [2]. In the Nebraska (partisan) model, voters were restricted to one and only one party ballot. Current partisan versions of the open primary are held in Virginia and other states.

    Posted by: 5h4m4m3Dura
  • The primary elections are the best option available.

    Primary elections give each party to show off their best candidates, and determining based upon state elections push forward their best candidate for the general election. No other alternative method has come forward that will allow each state to give their individual opinion on a wide scale and compare to others. Until a better option is viable this is what we will use.

    Posted by: ChuckGenius
  • Our current primary process is flawed, and would benefit from change.

    Currently, the primaries and caucuses are asynchronous, and give the earlier states a greater choice of candidates. This means, the people in later primary states may have wanted a candidate that already has been eliminated. It would make more sense to have a single primary day nationwide. Also, depending on what state you live in, you may not be able to vote in whichever party's primary that you want - and if you are registered Independent, may not be able to vote at all. This is unfairly silencing many voters.

    Posted by: K_Frye
  • No way

    The primaries are the essentials of the election process and plus they are a great way for the U.S. citizens to familiarize themselves with potential candidates. Getting to know them and just to see if they are a good match for the country, changing this only confuses others and rumors spread.

  • No, because the primaries are enough.

    I think the primaries are a necessary part of the election process. They are a great way for the American people to familiarize themselves with the potential candidates. Changing the process will only confuse the public more than they already are. So, it is best to leave the primaries as they are.

    Posted by: AheadYoung
  • I disagree that there is a better alternative to primaries in U.S. elections, because the current system allows access to every potential candidate.

    Although the current system has flaws, its inclusiveness in allowing every person the opportunity to run for office is its most important feature in my opinion. If not for open primaries, we would probably have political parties selecting our candidates, something could be good or not so good for the American people. There are always going to be political operatives in the background, but I feel better knowing that I also have a small say in who runs for office by exercising my right to vote in primaries.

    Posted by: SuddenRashad84
  • I believe that the primaries are a good way for us to choose candidates for political positions.

    I don't believe that primaries are a problem. The problem seems to lie in the lack of good, qualified, moral and honest candidates. Each election these candidates seem to be lacking. For example, although President Obama was a popular candidate, I don't believe he really had the experience needed for the job, and our economic mess displays this. He has been in office over three years with no real relief to the problems multiplying in this country. Many elected candidates have been in the news in the last couple years for their immoralities. We need better candidates!

    Posted by: MessyRashad29
  • Narrow the field before or after the primaries, but the field must still be narrowed.

    Primaries are the winnowing of candidates for one political party to a single person. Then, the different political parties run against each other. The one with the most electoral votes wins. If we did not have primaries for each political party, the national elections would have that effect. It may even be detrimental, by forcing multiple run-off elections until one person won, as lesser candidates fell off the ballot. It is more fair to each party to at least have a chance to put its best candidate or most popular candidate in the one national election, than it is to risk three or four candidates of major parties winning with a greater share of the initial voting. For example, the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, in 2000, had a party with only 1-2% of the population, but almost 10% of the final vote. By putting him in the national election, he had a chance to win. In an open race against Bush, Gore, and the Libertarian candidate, he wouldn't have made it to the final election.

    Posted by: Pir4And
  • The primaries are a good way for the elections to run, because they help narrow down the candidates.

    The primaries are a great way to kick off elections. Allowing the mass quantity of candidates to be thinned out is important to an election. Having too many candidates to choose from only makes the population more divided. By allowing the primaries to take place, it allows us to choose the best of the best, and then move forward from there.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • Primaries are a vital way of ensuring that voters have more than two choices.

    Before the primary system, it seems that nominees of political parties were selected in back rooms by party insiders. The advent of a more democratic method of selecting the candidates who will appear on the fall ballot provides the people with an additional way to shape the ideological and policy landscape. Through primaries, inappropriate extremism can be reined in, or timid centrism can be stretched to address challenges the political status quo has neglected. This system is an important, albeit imperfect, counterweight to the power of corporate lobbyists and other special interests. Many have suggested, plausibly, that the primary campaigns in presidential elections should be shortened, but that issue is a separate one from the appropriateness of primaries per se.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • No, the present system means that the people get a good opportunity to learn about the candidates.

    The candidates must travel throughout the entire country and express their views to various audiences. The primaries give the candidates the chance to refine their views and opinions on issues and get feedback from a large cross section of the electorate. The people in each state then vote for their choice after a thorough examination of the candidates.

    Posted by: R33Bert
  • Primaries serve to generate one candidate from a political party, which is better and less confusing, politically.

    In 2008, there were numerous candidates running for President in the Republican and Democratic parties. The primaries served to whittle them down to one person whom each party could stand behind. For example, the Democrats were choosing, primarily, between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Imagine if they had no primary, the Democrats would have been overwhelmingly split, nearly 50-50, but the Republicans would have beaten them with a single, unified vote for McCain. Therefore, primaries have their importance in the election process, but only in unifying and consolidating the party's strength.

    Posted by: Asher Cummings
  • Primaries adequately give the voters the opportunity to choose their favorite of the top candidates for the job.

    By using primaries, we can allow the public to have a greater voice in the choice of their new office holders. By giving the public more choices to start with, they can narrow down who they don't like and can avoid having to choose between two candidates they don't like.

    Posted by: 5h4yEwa

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.