(04-14-2022, 10:44 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 09:33 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I'm open to other voting methods, especially in the primaries. I am not open to changing our federal electoral system. Here's a compromise. Party primaries get standardized rules that binds their convention to choose the party winner as decided by the people. Primaries adopt a ranked choice style. Candidates are ranked and the person with the most votes wins. For the national election, we follow the constitution and use only the nominees from parties that are recognized in at least 3/4s of the states. That seems simple enough.

But does the government actually have a constitutional right to regulate how political parties choose their candidates?  Here is an interesting article on the subject, dealing with state regulation of political parties.  I'm not sure if the federal government has that right, though.  

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0...20imposed.

By the way, if the Republicans had had ranked choice voting, I don't think Trump would have gotten the nomination in 2016.

That would have been a good thing. I think Rand Paul would have been the choice, who is probably one of the better thinkers in DC. 

As to your question, no, it doesn't. This is why I said I would change a lot about the way we vote. It would be very difficult to make changes through the proper channels. Part of the problem exists because our founders saw our states as independent nations that were forming a union. They didn't see it as one, federalized country, which is what it became after the civil war. Because of this, I think it leaves the state voting mechanisms exploitable.

---