• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, I kind of agree here. I think we should have a “playoff” system where candidates could pick a party for advertising purposes, but otherwise compete on an open playing field with all other candidates.

      Here’s how I’d like it to work:

      • ban all political ads, outside of informing when the next debate or rally will happen
      • all debates are funded with tax-payer dollars
      • for House seats, vote by party for the general election, and Reps would be elected proportionally and based on primary votes
      • Senate seats work as they currently do, except for the voting system change below
      • all votes are some kind of IRV system, e.g. ranked choice, approval, etc
      • there would be a vote after each primary debate (should have 3-5 of those), and if you don’t participate, your previous votes carry forward through the primary process; candidates are eliminated if they go under some threshold; you could straight-ticket this, but it would weight all candidates from your party equally

      This probably needs to be refined, but I think the general approach is worth discussing.

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Independent is a party, you probably mean unafilliated, but in CO, unafilliated voters are able to vote in either R or D primaries, though not both.

        • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Unaffiliated makes sense to be able to vote for whoever in a primary, but if you are party affiliated, why should you get to vote in a primary for the party you’re not affiliated with? You made a choice on who you support, and registered it with the state, unlike unaffiliated voters.