Would open primaries help with candidate quality

[PlanoDano]

The primaries where you choose a republican or democrat ballot is giving the extremes of both parties way to much power.

Democrats
Have to cater to militant gay and trans are they risk losing in the primary
Have to cater to the far left ie squad and Bernie people or risk being primaried.

Republicans
Have to give credence to the lie or they will be primaried.
Have to avoid criticism of reprehensible groups or they could lose in the primary.

[Playa]

You will have the same quality of candidates because both parties will be working behind the scenes to install the candidate of choice.

it will never happen because the ruling class likes the facade of “two parties” and the natural division it creates

[100%TtId]

Candidate quality would be improved if we took crooked politicians to jail.

[WItoTX]

It doesn't matter, it will not be allowed. After Nader, the two parties made sure no third party could run, and they could maintain control. This is why Trump is such an issue. He figured out a workaround.

[tvc184]

The Constitution is what allows the two party system with the electoral college.

The two parties don’t have to do anything to keep the status quo.

Without a runoff which happens in probably 99% of elections whether city, school district, county, state and even federal senators and representatives, the two parties are virtually locked in. So unless the Constitution is changed, no conspiracy or back room deals are needed in order to keep two parties in charge.

[WItoTX]

Tvc, it's not the constitution. It's the backdoor agreement both parties have made to shut out independent candidates from the debates (if we can call them that...).

[tvc184]

Tvc, it's not the constitution. It's the backdoor agreement both parties have made to shut out independent candidates from the debates (if we can call them that...).

Agreements don’t matter.

There is no way for some magical third party to win a majority of electoral college votes. Even if the third party got the most popular votes and the largest electoral college number of votes, that third party still could not win.

The Constitution stands in the way.

[jdg13]

Wouldn't matter. The most extreme will get the spotlight no matter what letter is by their name. Ruling class ain't going to let their pick get beat by some nobody.

[WItoTX]

Agreements don’t matter.

There is no way for some magical third party to win a majority of electoral college votes. Even if the third party got the most popular votes and the largest electoral college number of votes, that third party still could not win.

The Constitution stands in the way.

The Constitution has nothing to do with getting alternative candidates/parties on the debate stage. Not to mention the collusion with MSM to not air those third party debates.

They can be on the ballot all they want. Won't matter when no one has ever heard of them, or their opinions.

Edit: I re-read your question. I don't understand what you mean by the constitution stands in the way? 270 is 270. Or are you saying no one hits 270, and then states vote by delegation?

[PlanoDano]

Even if there is no third party. Having the ability to vote for a republican candidate AND a democratic candidate in the primaries, would reduce the power of the extremes on both sides and empower candidates acceptable to the largest number of voters which now is independent voters. Right now, independent voters have to hold their nose and vote for a candidate which is basically vetted by the extremes in each party. This is why democratic candidates must cater to the radical left and vice versa for the right.

[WItoTX]

Even if there is no third party. Having the ability to vote for a republican candidate AND a democratic candidate in the primaries, would reduce the power of the extremes on both sides and empower candidates acceptable to the largest number of voters which now is independent voters. Right now, independent voters have to hold their nose and vote for a candidate which is basically vetted by the extremes in each party. This is why democratic candidates must cater to the radical left and vice versa for the right.

Who do independents vote for in primaries? They don't have to vote for the most extreme. They simply have to pick a side.

I am not saying it eloquently. But basically what you are saying is let's do a popular vote for the primaries. And on March 6, (or whatever day Super Tuesday falls on), we would likely know who is going to be president in November.

[PlanoDano]

Who do independents vote for in primaries? They don't have to vote for the most extreme. They simply have to pick a side.

I am not saying it eloquently. But basically what you are saying is let's do a popular vote for the primaries. And on March 6, (or whatever day Super Tuesday falls on), we would likely know who is going to be president in November.

Last I read independents make up about 40% of the electorate. I can only guess what the total would be if you add moderate D and moderate R. The current system gives far too much power to the extremes in each party. It also basically shuts out any third party candidates. Maybe give each voter 2 votes and take the top 2 vote getters in the general. If both happen to be R or D then so be it. We would see Rs who do not have to pay homage to trump and Ds who dare not support trans bathroom access.

[WItoTX]

Again, turns into a popular vote. We could give everyone 100 votes. All 100 votes are going to the same guy. Or, conversely, if they are only allowed to vote for one person with one vote, then everyone gets nominated.

The current system caters to the people most interested in politics. The base is the group interested in primaries. Maybe independents should get more involved early on? And if they want Jeb! over Trump, then they have their chance to do it.

Maybe we could split primaries into voting by party, but you can change what party you vote for by national, state, and local elections. For me, that would be great, because then I could vote in the County Judge race, for any democrat by Lina, while getting to vote for Trump or DeSantis of Swamy at the national level, or splitting it by the level of the race would allow something like Operation Chaos to be able to occur. Just spit-balling here. I am sure there is a downside to it.

[PlanoDano]

Neither turn into a popular vote. Having voter cqast ballots in both primaries is the best answer. The only losers there are those who like seeing power stay completely in the hands of the extreme. I am aware of our founding fathers fear of "tyranny by the majority" but they did not design this primary system and it has resulted in excess power with the minority. It has also resulted with candidates being steered by the fringe.

[Drycreek3189]

I didn’t read all of the replies, but you have to take into consideration what type of people are attracted to politics. Therein lies your answer.