Ditch primaries and go with multiple-choice voting

Primaries are a private race. Parties use primary ballots to advertise their respective parties. Elections operations are paid for with public money. Even nonvoters are paying for these private contests.

Uncontested incumbents appear on primary ballots. Is this information or campaigning? Whatever it is, it is a waste of space, time and public money. Running elections is labor heavy and not cheap. Bloated ballots increase costs.

In the past decade, voters have experienced approval and ranked choice voting methods, which greatly differ from the method we have not enjoyed for 240 years. By using any voting method that permits more than one choice of preferred candidates for a single office, we can ditch primaries altogether.

We could move up the date of the general election to closer to the current primary date, and elect the new officers before the present terms expire. This gives a possibility of cooperative work in the transfer of responsibilities and direction. The media can focus on other real and present dangers, other than the theatrics of the political domain.

Big media thrives on a neverending election cycle for easy studio reporting and talking head spin. Oddsmakers occupy all of the space, betting on small margins in featured contests. This would drastically change if plurality were to be retired for a multiple choice method.

Multiple-choice ballots have a distinct effect on squelching negative messaging. When voters have more choices, more candidates appear interested. This may diminish party influence. It will certainly confuse media talking heads and probability profundents.

Approval voting lets you vote for more than one candidate, and the clerk simply counts all of the votes. Seven friends are ordering two pizzas, and toppings are naturally approval voting with a show of hands. I have the liberty to get anchovies separately.