Should there be a primary for political independents?

[my2¢]

I think our democratic process would benefit if free-thinkers were not forced to simply settle on the lesser of two evils put forth before us by the thought-frees. With a quarter of the population viewing both parties unfavorably, I say it is time to end the monopoly of the two major parties by either (1) have independents given equal standing or (2) end public funding of primary elections which are generally paid for by all taxpayers.

What say you?

 

[The Great Goose]

I say you like the two party system and are lying.

 

[candycorn]

What we have now are party primaries. Political parties are comprised of persons who think alike generally. Independent politicians usually are independent because they have thoughts outside of the existing large political parties. It is unlikely you'd gather enough interest to have a 3rd party that was truly independent with some folks on both sides of major issues.

One way you could have it done was by having the candidates declare for more than one party if they wish. So when voters go to the polls, they can vote, for example, for Trump as the GOP nominee. Then pick any candidate (Trump if they wish) for a alternate.

You'd probably need a separate booth and not everyone would want to cast a vote for an alternate (just like not everyone would want to cast a vote for a Republican or Democrat). But yeah, what the hell. If a candidate doesn't get his party's nomination, it shows how much support she gets from independents.

 

[jwoodie]

I guess allowing independents to vote in ONE of the Party primaries would be OK if the details could be worked out. However, it might leave a lot of room for mischief (e.g., negative voting).