The 2016 Presidential race has laid bare the significant flaws of the current nomination processes of both major political parties.

 

“We the people” have sensed for years that the system was far from ideal.  For instance, why should Iowa always be first, New Hampshire second, and South Carolina soon afterwards such that these states winnow the field every time before voters in other states get to have a say? 

 

But, now, the depths of the problems that arise from inconsistent voting formats and arcane delegate selection rules that vary from state to state (including "super delegates" and "unbound delegates") are fully exposed, feeding a palpable perception that the systems are “rigged” to thwart the will of the people. 

 

Since both the Democrat and Republican party processes appear to be more about achieving a result in the interests of “we the party” rather than “we the people,” we find ourselves at a pivotal moment in which concerned and frustrated citizens from all across the political spectrum can agree: 

 

      It is time to implement a solution that will clean up this mess. 

 

The President is “of the United States” – and thus this is the singular office that undoubtedly warrants the establishment of one basic set of rules to guide its nomination process throughout all states. 

 

In preparation for the election cycle in 2020, we can and should implement this new system – one that is simple yet dynamic, purposeful, fair*, transparent and understandable to all. 

​

This will establish a process that is worthy of the office it seeks to fill. 

 

*  The approach of this proposal is to establish an unbiased framework. The only agenda herein is to achieve a level playing field with clear rules. This is a refreshing contrast to those who seek to create and maintain undue advantages. 

So, who will like this proposal?

• Trump supporters who felt frustration with the possibility that Trump's delegates would quickly switch to another candidate.

• Sanders supporters who saw many states won by Sanders but the majority of those states' delegates favored Clinton anyway due to overwhelming super delegate support of Clinton.

• Cruz supporters who recognize that the Republican system is designed not only to block a populist like Trump but also a conservative like Cruz.

• Establishment Republicans who now see that their system no longer works to deflect a Trump or Cruz candidacy - and that media reports of their pronouncements that they could use archane mechanisms in a contested convention to ignore the implications and expectations of the election results only made them look worse in the eyes of the voters. 

• Independent voters who see both parties' current processes for the failures that they are.

• Anyone who appreciates clarity, purpose and fairness.

Who will NOT like this proposal? 

Those who wish to maintain or create undue advantages, such as:

• Power brokers in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

• Those in media who prefer the excessive drama created by the current, flawed systems over the straightforward news coverage that would result from a transparent process.

• Those voters who are excited and energized about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency - since the current Democrat Party system appears to have remained successful in controlling the nomination result.

• Party officials who think they can regain their advantages through a few cosmetic tweaks rather than a complete overhaul of their systems.

 

 

​

​

​

​