What do we have to do to get better presidential candidates?

[Pwns]

Is there anything that can be done?

I would be fine with requiring at least 3 or 4 people in each debate, but I'm not sure that's going to help third parties or independents very much.

I've suggested banning all closed primaries before, but that's probably not going to happen.

[AZGrizFan]

Voters are lazy, don’t educate themselves on the issues or candidates, the process costs too much, takes too long, is too convoluted, and needs to be rethought. The way it’s structured, fringe elements control the primary process, and moderates get drowned out in the melee caused by the vocal minorities on both sides. A reasonable, thoughtful adult can’t get their message through. There were much better R candidates in 2016, and there were much better D candidates this year, but we don’t get a chance to vote on them because, with the expense of maintaining a national campaign, if you don’t do well in the first primary or two, you lose any traction you might have gained and rapidly become an afterthought.

Personally, I’m becoming more and more a fan of the ranked choice voting model—and then have all state primaries on the same day.

Oh, and one last thing: After the way the media/congress treated Kavanaugh, what in the WORLD would possess anyone with a shred of common sense to run for president? Honestly, why would you put yourself and your family through that meat grinder?

[Ibanez]

Voters are lazy, don’t educate themselves on the issues or candidates, the process costs too much, takes too long, is too convoluted, and needs to be rethought. The way it’s structured, fringe elements control the primary process, and moderates get drowned out in the melee caused by the vocal minorities on both sides. A reasonable, thoughtful adult can’t get their message through. There were much better R candidates in 2016, and there were much better D candidates this year, but we don’t get a chance to vote on them because, with the expense of maintaining a national campaign, if you don’t do well in the first primary or two, you lose any traction you might have gained and rapidly become an afterthought.

Personally, I’m becoming more and more a fan of the ranked choice voting model—and then have all state primaries on the same day.

Oh, and one last thing: After the way the media/congress treated Kavanaugh, what in the WORLD would possess anyone with a shred of common sense to run for president? Honestly, why would you put yourself and your family through that meat grinder?

[Winterborn]

In 2018 Fargo went to an "Approval" style of voting for all municipal elections.

[UNI88]

Voters are lazy, don’t educate themselves on the issues or candidates, the process costs too much, takes too long, is too convoluted, and needs to be rethought. The way it’s structured, fringe elements control the primary process, and moderates get drowned out in the melee caused by the vocal minorities on both sides. A reasonable, thoughtful adult can’t get their message through. There were much better R candidates in 2016, and there were much better D candidates this year, but we don’t get a chance to vote on them because, with the expense of maintaining a national campaign, if you don’t do well in the first primary or two, you lose any traction you might have gained and rapidly become an afterthought.

Personally, I’m becoming more and more a fan of the ranked choice voting model—and then have all state primaries on the same day.

Oh, and one last thing: After the way the media/congress treated Kavanaugh, what in the WORLD would possess anyone with a shred of common sense to run for president? Honestly, why would you put yourself and your family through that meat grinder?

What about getting rid of gerrymandering and having open primaries where the two leading candidates face off against each other in the general election regardless of party. In heavily Conk or Donk districts you will likely have two people from the same party facing off against each other and the voters from the other party can swing the election toward the more moderate member of the opposition.

[Winterborn]

Voters are lazy, don’t educate themselves on the issues or candidates, the process costs too much, takes too long, is too convoluted, and needs to be rethought. The way it’s structured, fringe elements control the primary process, and moderates get drowned out in the melee caused by the vocal minorities on both sides. A reasonable, thoughtful adult can’t get their message through. There were much better R candidates in 2016, and there were much better D candidates this year, but we don’t get a chance to vote on them because, with the expense of maintaining a national campaign, if you don’t do well in the first primary or two, you lose any traction you might have gained and rapidly become an afterthought.

Personally, I’m becoming more and more a fan of the ranked choice voting model—and then have all state primaries on the same day.

Oh, and one last thing: After the way the media/congress treated Kavanaugh, what in the WORLD would possess anyone with a shred of common sense to run for president? Honestly, why would you put yourself and your family through that meat grinder?

What about getting rid of gerrymandering and having open primaries where the two leading candidates face off against each other in the general election regardless of party. In heavily Conk or Donk districts you will likely have two people from the same party facing off against each other and the voters from the other party can swing the election toward the more moderate member of the opposition.

Gerrymandering is a huge problem.

When we went to an approval style voting style (it is a typed of RCV) it was a bit confusing at first for some but so far it has worked well in the few elections we have had.

[AZGrizFan]

Voters are lazy, don’t educate themselves on the issues or candidates, the process costs too much, takes too long, is too convoluted, and needs to be rethought. The way it’s structured, fringe elements control the primary process, and moderates get drowned out in the melee caused by the vocal minorities on both sides. A reasonable, thoughtful adult can’t get their message through. There were much better R candidates in 2016, and there were much better D candidates this year, but we don’t get a chance to vote on them because, with the expense of maintaining a national campaign, if you don’t do well in the first primary or two, you lose any traction you might have gained and rapidly become an afterthought.

Personally, I’m becoming more and more a fan of the ranked choice voting model—and then have all state primaries on the same day.

Oh, and one last thing: After the way the media/congress treated Kavanaugh, what in the WORLD would possess anyone with a shred of common sense to run for president? Honestly, why would you put yourself and your family through that meat grinder?

What about getting rid of gerrymandering and having open primaries where the two leading candidates face off against each other in the general election regardless of party. In heavily Conk or Donk districts you will likely have two people from the same party facing off against each other and the voters from the other party can swing the election toward the more moderate member of the opposition.

Yes. Can’t believe I left off gerrymandering in my laundry list...

[Pwns]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, we need to get rid of our idiotic system of staggered primaries, or at least rotate which states go first. There should be no bitching about how the EC makes some states matter more than others until that is dealt with.

[GannonFan]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, we need to get rid of our idiotic system of staggered primaries, or at least rotate which states go first. There should be no bitching about how the EC makes some states matter more than others until that is dealt with.

I like the idea of a rotation - be hard to get all 50 states to go along with it, but I like the idea of getting Iowa and New Hampshire out of their entrenched positions.

[AZGrizFan]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, we need to get rid of our idiotic system of staggered primaries, or at least rotate which states go first. There should be no bitching about how the EC makes some states matter more than others until that is dealt with.

I like the idea of a rotation - be hard to get all 50 states to go along with it, but I like the idea of getting Iowa and New Hampshire out of their entrenched positions.

Just do them all on the same day and get it over with. Make it a national holiday. Voting Day.

[GannonFan]

I like the idea of a rotation - be hard to get all 50 states to go along with it, but I like the idea of getting Iowa and New Hampshire out of their entrenched positions.

Just do them all on the same day and get it over with. Make it a national holiday. Voting Day.

That would eliminate the chance for someone not already well known from being able to break from the pack and build some momentum. That certainly favors the establishment even more than the current system. Not sure that would be worthwhile.

[Pwns]

I would suggest this for the primary schedule:

February: 5 states have primaries (choose 5 states that had the closest result in the last presidential election)
March: 5 more states (choose the next 5 closest)
April: 5 more states (the next 5 closest)
May: same thing
June: The other 30 states hold their primaries.

[HI54UNI]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, we need to get rid of our idiotic system of staggered primaries, or at least rotate which states go first. There should be no bitching about how the EC makes some states matter more than others until that is dealt with.

I like the idea of a rotation - be hard to get all 50 states to go along with it, but I like the idea of getting Iowa and New Hampshire out of their entrenched positions.

As an Iowan I would be all for this. Let some others suffer through the endless campaigns.

[Ivytalk]

Is there anything that can be done?

I would be fine with requiring at least 3 or 4 people in each debate, but I'm not sure that's going to help third parties or independents very much.

I've suggested banning all closed primaries before, but that's probably not going to happen.

I disagree strongly on closed primaries, on freedom of association grounds. If I were a Democrat or a Republican, I wouldn’t want some independent/“undeclared” voter messing up my party’s choices. The crossover primaries, where Democrats and Republicans can vote in each other’s primaries, are even worse, raising the prospect of sabotage. If you don’t have any skin in the game, stay the hell out.

[Ivytalk]

Voters are lazy, don’t educate themselves on the issues or candidates, the process costs too much, takes too long, is too convoluted, and needs to be rethought. The way it’s structured, fringe elements control the primary process, and moderates get drowned out in the melee caused by the vocal minorities on both sides. A reasonable, thoughtful adult can’t get their message through. There were much better R candidates in 2016, and there were much better D candidates this year, but we don’t get a chance to vote on them because, with the expense of maintaining a national campaign, if you don’t do well in the first primary or two, you lose any traction you might have gained and rapidly become an afterthought.

Personally, I’m becoming more and more a fan of the ranked choice voting model—and then have all state primaries on the same day.

Oh, and one last thing: After the way the media/congress treated Kavanaugh, what in the WORLD would possess anyone with a shred of common sense to run for president? Honestly, why would you put yourself and your family through that meat grinder?

That last paragraph may be your best point, AZ. Quality people stay out of the running because of the press, the family dynamics, and the bullshit. If you’ve been successful in life, why risk it with a run for POTUS?

[GannonFan]

Voters are lazy, don’t educate themselves on the issues or candidates, the process costs too much, takes too long, is too convoluted, and needs to be rethought. The way it’s structured, fringe elements control the primary process, and moderates get drowned out in the melee caused by the vocal minorities on both sides. A reasonable, thoughtful adult can’t get their message through. There were much better R candidates in 2016, and there were much better D candidates this year, but we don’t get a chance to vote on them because, with the expense of maintaining a national campaign, if you don’t do well in the first primary or two, you lose any traction you might have gained and rapidly become an afterthought.

Personally, I’m becoming more and more a fan of the ranked choice voting model—and then have all state primaries on the same day.

Oh, and one last thing: After the way the media/congress treated Kavanaugh, what in the WORLD would possess anyone with a shred of common sense to run for president? Honestly, why would you put yourself and your family through that meat grinder?

That last paragraph may be your best point, AZ. Quality people stay out of the running because of the press, the family dynamics, and the bullshit. If you’ve been successful in life, why risk it with a run for POTUS?

I agree with that. One of the bad outcomes that will come out of the Trump presidency is that you are very unlikely to see again a Presidential candidate who isn't a lifelong politician. There's just too much baggage and sound bites and Twitter memes that can be attached to anyone who has been outside of the political circles and been involved in any real life activities. What you own, who you did business with, where you built your home, where you sent your kids to school, etc. Those are all things that are part of political calculations but are not the singular focus of someone who has more concerns than politics at the time. Biden has been in politics for 50 years now - he's more of what will be the norm going forward, and anyone would be hard pressed to classify him as anything more than average in terms of capability, and that was before he got old.

[Winterborn]

That last paragraph may be your best point, AZ. Quality people stay out of the running because of the press, the family dynamics, and the bullshit. If you’ve been successful in life, why risk it with a run for POTUS?

I agree with that. One of the bad outcomes that will come out of the Trump presidency is that you are very unlikely to see again a Presidential candidate who isn't a lifelong politician. There's just too much baggage and sound bites and Twitter memes that can be attached to anyone who has been outside of the political circles and been involved in any real life activities. What you own, who you did business with, where you built your home, where you sent your kids to school, etc. Those are all things that are part of political calculations but are not the singular focus of someone who has more concerns than politics at the time. Biden has been in politics for 50 years now - he's more of what will be the norm going forward, and anyone would be hard pressed to classify him as anything more than average in terms of capability, and that was before he got old.

Disagree a bit Gannon. I don't think good people not running is a result of Trump but started a couple of election cycles before that. It is more because of a change in culture/media habits than any one person that caused it, IMHO.

The type of candidates that are elected are really no different than others in different periods of our history. We have elected crappy candidates in all areas of office before, it just that they didn't have the 24/7/365 media circus and technology that is available now to keep track of their every move, nor a culture that is a bit obsessed with instant gratification.