How the RNC Could Have Avoided all This Trump Madness, and Could Win the General Election Every Time.

Can you remember the last time the primaries produced somebody that you were actually excited to vote for? I’m willing to guess that you, like the majority of Americans, felt that you were repeatedly facing the choice of “the lesser of two evils” during almost every general election.

Why is that? After all, these candidates were voted for and that would seem to indicate that a majority of people actually thought that their candidate was the best possible person to become president. Right?

Well, if there’s one thing we’re learning for sure this election season, it’s that extremes can motivate enough voters, and, when the moderates are split between options, a plurality can be a real threat.

Now, as of this writing, we have big names in the RNC like 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying things like:

I like Governor John Kasich. I have campaigned with him. He has a solid record as governor. I would have voted for him in Ohio. But a vote for Governor Kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that Trumpism would prevail.

I will vote for Senator Cruz and I encourage others to do so as well

In other words, “Man, I wish I could vote for my candidate, but I’m going to vote for the dude I don’t like.” How did this become American politics?

But there is a solution, Brother Romney. A shockingly simple, effective solution that not only ensures vocal extremists don’t hold your party hostage, but will virtually guarantee that your nominee will be well liked by the majority of republican and independent voters. Here it is:

Let people vote more than once.

One Person, Infinite Votes?

Okay, okay. Calm down. I know your first reaction is to say “That doesn’t work.” But multiple-vote systems have been around for centuries, and they offer some key advantages that could turn primary elections into a real chance for the people to unite behind a candidate. Here’s the gist of it:

Imagine you are in a group of 10 people trying to decide what movie to watch. If you give each person a vote, a plurality of 4 voters could force all 10 people to watch a horror film if the other 6 can’t agree between an action movie and a romance movie. The majority end up with an option they don’t like. Sound familiar?

But if you let people vote as much as they want, it’s no longer about voting only your top choice, it’s about discovering the option that appeals to the most people. Like this:

“Who likes the horror film?” 4 people raise their hands.

“Who likes the romance film?” 5 people raise their hands.

“Who likes the action film?” 8 people raise their hands.

The downside is, of course, that the people who preferred the horror film and the romance film don’t get their first choice, but they discover that nearly all of them are just fine with action movies, and they choose an option that makes most of them happy.

That’s fine for movies, but does it work for elections?

Yes. Imagine Florida saying: “Okay, vote for as many candidates as you want.”

First, we know that most people voted for candidates other than Trump, but that vote was split three ways, allowing Trump to come away with a win. But what if all those Cruz supporters said, “Well, I prefer Cruz, but I’m also okay with Rubio?” What if Trump supporters said, “Well, I prefer Trump, but I’m also okay with Rubio?”

Suddenly, it’s a very different result. A result that makes you happy, RNC. A result that also makes the majority of your voters happy instead of a bad candidate who can only win when the majority is fractured between good options.

More importantly, you end up with a candidate who can actually bring in independents. A person who offers a “good” option compared to the extremists.

Romney could find himself saying, “I’m going to vote for my favorite option, because I’m not forced to use my vote ‘against’ another candidate.”

Yes there are some weaknesses with every multi-vote method out there, not the least of which is dealing with the math. But this is the 21st century and these weaknesses are inconsequential when compared with the chance to offer a candidate that the majority of Americans can rally behind.