“Had voters been able to express their preferences as a ranked list of candidates, Romney would have been near the bottom for majority of people.”
I don’t know if a “ranking vote” can be relieved upon...but I do agree strongly with you sentiment. Personally, I would like to see mandatory runoffs if no candidate gets at least a true 50%. Pick the top two and let them square off in each state primary. Speaking of which...I would like to see ONLY primaries (no caucasuses) and only closed primaries. IF you are registered a Republican, you shouldn’t be voting in a Republican primary. Make folks chose a party, or to stay home primary elections.
One thing I hate about Missouri (where I now reside) is that they have open primaries. We didn’t do that nonsense in my home of Oklahoma. When I was young, I used to be “Independent” because I didn’t really understand the differences between the parties (yes I was ignorant). I never, and rightly so, got to vote in a primary. It wasn’t until my later 30s that I became politically aware and registered GOP so I could vote on State offices.
Interestingly enough, I always voted for the GOP presidential candidate starting with Gerald Ford in 1976. This will be the first year I will not vote GOP, because I cannot vote or Romney anymore than Obama. My conscience and convictions won’t let me support the magic mormon. Of course I would NEVER support the Obamanation.
You just have to look at Ted Cruz in Texas to see how a run-off election helps conservatives. Both he and Dewhurst had in the 40s, but Dewhurst was higher. In the run-off between them, Dewhurts only gained 1 point while the rest went to Cruz, giving him the win.
If a run-off had been held in the presidential election in 1992, Bush most likely would have become president, with the same kind of results.
Allowing a candidate who gets under 50% of the vote to win is not democracy, because it’s possible that over 50% of the people would NEVER have voted for him.
I think an “instant runoff” ballot is probably the best way to go. A simple question asking who your second choice is if your first choice is not among the finalists is easy to understand.
In a more accurate system, you might grade or score every single candidate on the list, but that’s probably too much for the voters to handle. Plus with grading you could have the odd result of one candidate who was NOBODY’S first choice win, if he gets all B scores, while the other candidates ended up with a lower average based on lots of A and below C scores. An instant runoff ballot would eliminate that “B” candidate from the running because only the top choice is counted in the first round.
The current rules are absurd, and guarantee a bad result. Personally, I would eliminate primaries altogether (we are suffering, being destroyed even, by an excess of democracy), but, failing that, I would do the following:
1) First primary not before April 1, last primary 14 days before the convention.
2) Qualify primary voters: Registered as a party member for the last two election cycles. No one else votes.
3) Require that, if no candidate wins 67% of the votes by qualified primary voters, that delegates be awarded proportionally. (Runoffs are impractical given the calendar).
4) Require 67% of seated delegates to be nominated.
5) In addition to elected delegates, seat at least 1/3 of elected Republican officeholders from every state, chosen by Republican governor if there is one, by the senior elected official if not.
The entire process has become a charade.