Want A Party?

OK. So, what if you're fed up with the two party system? In fact, what if you're fed up with the party system? What other choices do we have? How about no party? Probably one of the best ways for that to happen is to eliminate the political party strangle hold on the Primary Elections. Why should two parties, run by some political bosses, decide who gets to run in the General election? What makes that fair? Or best for the Electorate? Electorate, that's us. If we had a wide open primary election, and have the two highest vote getters run in the General election, at least we'd be getting the two people most voters want. At least that's a start. It beats having the two candidates most party bosses want us to have, right? There are times when it could be the same two people either way, but at least we'd know we picked them. Not only that, they'd have less allegiance to any party and a little more toward us. That doesn't mean we wouldn't get some real stinkers sometimes, but it'd be our fault. The next thing we'd need to do is to cut back on the requirements of having so many petition signers. I mean, we need some proof this isn't a nut case running, but make it possible for a dozen or so candidates to run in the Primary. Not just those chosen few. Then if we wanted really good candidates who actually might make good legislators, we need to get rid of so much corporate and special interest sponsorship. Arrange for real honest debates that all candidates must participate. If you have fifteen debates, require that a candidate must p[anticipate in no less than twelve. And no name calling, finger pointing and all that sillyness. And they must be televised. Let the government pay for it. It would be worth the expense in order to get good competent people in office. You know, instead of folks like me.