• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should presidential elections be a free-for-all with all candidates on the ballot

Unitedwestand13

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't believe this idea has been ever been proposed before but I think it may be worth considering.

Under my idea, The 2016 election would have went something like this:

First, there is a general primary some time in march,where all the candidates are on the ballot, regardless of party. In this primary, the top three vote getters of from each parties advance to the next round.

Let us say in this example that the democrats nominate as their canidates Hilliary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley; while the Republican nominate Donald trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich.

After this round comes an elimination round lasting from mid-march to voting day in early June. During between voting days are 2 to 3 debates, featuring all six major party candidates (third parties are excluded from these particular debates for specific 4reasons) in these debates and during the waiting period between march and June, each of the major party candidates make their pitches to the American public about which of them best represents the interests of the American public.

On the Election Day for this round, all six candidates are again on the ballot, and this serves as the party primary and selects the candidate for both the republican and democratic candidates.

The third round, starting in early June, is the general election itself, with voting day on the first Tuesday of November. The respective parties have their nominating conventions during this time, as well as the head to head debates. One additional twist: all third party candidates are mandated to be allowed to participate in the debates, no excuses.

Finally, there is the final Election Day in November.

Is that kind of setup a plausible alternative to our current process of conducting elections?
 
We, the US, spend entirely too much time and money on the election process. Almost from the start of a term the candidate is campaigning for the next term. Term limits of some sort, or a rotation policy so that there are not all fresh faces at the same time.
Another thing we should adopt from our past history is that the number one vote getter takes the office of President and number two becomes the Vice-President. Can you imagine DJT and HRC having offices in the same building?


:duel
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don't believe this idea has been ever been proposed before but I think it may be worth considering.

Under my idea, The 2016 election would have went something like this:

First, there is a general primary some time in march,where all the candidates are on the ballot, regardless of party. In this primary, the top three vote getters of from each parties advance to the next round.

Let us say in this example that the democrats nominate as their canidates Hilliary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley; while the Republican nominate Donald trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich.

After this round comes an elimination round lasting from mid-march to voting day in early June. During between voting days are 2 to 3 debates, featuring all six major party candidates (third parties are excluded from these particular debates for specific 4reasons) in these debates and during the waiting period between march and June, each of the major party candidates make their pitches to the American public about which of them best represents the interests of the American public.

On the Election Day for this round, all six candidates are again on the ballot, and this serves as the party primary and selects the candidate for both the republican and democratic candidates.

The third round, starting in early June, is the general election itself, with voting day on the first Tuesday of November. The respective parties have their nominating conventions during this time, as well as the head to head debates. One additional twist: all third party candidates are mandated to be allowed to participate in the debates, no excuses.

Finally, there is the final Election Day in November.

Is that kind of setup a plausible alternative to our current process of conducting elections?
Click to expand...

I like the sentiment but think that it overlooks the State responsibility in the Constitution of conducting primaries and caucuses, and the role of parties in submitting candidates to conform to each states' primary / caucus process. This implies that all states would comply with a nationally mandated process (Federal process), not explicitly outlined in the constitution.

As I understand it, the reason States were given such latitude in the electoral process, indeed the electoral college system, was to empower the states with some power to affect the presidential election that balances federal, state and popular (the peoples power) in choosing the president.

Before going to the gut reaction of watering down the party system (a system itself which has its own flaws) to more effectively represent the peoples choice, you'd need to consider the balance of power in the electoral process that balances federal, state and popular, so none has an advantage over the other. After all the president is supposed to represent the people, the states, and the country.

For instance, the Iowa Caucuses, being the the first battle for party candidates, gives Iowa, a less populated state, a direct impact on the initial choice of party candidates. It therefore empowers that state with a decisive role on the party candidates and, through the caucus process, espouses the idea that candidates must convince voters directly by talking to them in the caucuses. Would Iowa relinquish it's influence under this new voting system? Would only urban areas that are densely populated get recognized?

Just my initial thoughts on this but worth considering.

-C
 
Rexedgar said:
We, the US, spend entirely too much time and money on the election process. Almost from the start of a term the candidate is campaigning for the next term. Term limits of some sort, or a rotation policy so that there are not all fresh faces at the same time.
Another thing we should adopt from our past history is that the number one vote getter takes the office of President and number two becomes the Vice-President. Can you imagine DJT and HRC having offices in the same building?


:duel
Click to expand...

I agree, we do spend too much money on politics and I believe we need term limits for all elected officials. It used to be that politicians weren't "professional." They were civic minded individuals that cared about their country enough to serve their country. The lack of term limits in congress, along with money and power that comes with it, in my mind, has destroyed our system and made it nothing more than a political elite oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. All political party messages are poll tested messages to ensure re-election and centralization of power and never reflect the truth.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don't believe this idea has been ever been proposed before but I think it may be worth considering.

Under my idea, The 2016 election would have went something like this:

First, there is a general primary some time in march,where all the candidates are on the ballot, regardless of party. In this primary, the top three vote getters of from each parties advance to the next round.

Let us say in this example that the democrats nominate as their canidates Hilliary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley; while the Republican nominate Donald trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich.

After this round comes an elimination round lasting from mid-march to voting day in early June. During between voting days are 2 to 3 debates, featuring all six major party candidates (third parties are excluded from these particular debates for specific 4reasons) in these debates and during the waiting period between march and June, each of the major party candidates make their pitches to the American public about which of them best represents the interests of the American public.

On the Election Day for this round, all six candidates are again on the ballot, and this serves as the party primary and selects the candidate for both the republican and democratic candidates.

The third round, starting in early June, is the general election itself, with voting day on the first Tuesday of November. The respective parties have their nominating conventions during this time, as well as the head to head debates. One additional twist: all third party candidates are mandated to be allowed to participate in the debates, no excuses.

Finally, there is the final Election Day in November.

Is that kind of setup a plausible alternative to our current process of conducting elections?
Click to expand...

Good idea except for one thing: I don't think voters want to vote more than the two times they vote now. In fact, many skip the primaries and just vote in the general. This would increase lower voter turnout and since you are a liberal, it would probably hurt your side more than help it. I've always been in favor of runoff elections like other countries do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom