At this point, I'd vote for any candidate who pledged to change the voting structure even if I disagreed with them on every other issue.
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that up to the parties themselves? If the Republicans wanted to decide their primary candidate by members-only STV, are there any laws which would stop them?
Well, the whole system is weird. It's more complicated that just the parties controlling everything, and there's a lot the government can do to change it. The Republican Party could change their primary system, but the federal or state governments could also change the system so that primaries are more regulated and official, or (preferably, from my standpoint) so that primaries are unnecessary. I'm also talking about more than just the primaries. Get rid of the Electoral College, set up the General Election as Alternative Voting, set up Congress with STV, etc. I think the whole system needs a revamp.
Agreed. This republican primary is a great example of why plurality voting is completely ridiculous. It seems like right now it's basically Trump taking the crazy or uninformed vote while the rest of the candidates duke it out for what's left. At this point, I'd vote for any candidate who pledged to change the voting structure even if I disagreed with them on every other issue.The primaries are there precisely to prevent pluralities. Getting rid of them would cause America to start experiencing those.
Not if we used the alternative vote to elect presidents. Plurality, or first past the post, voting is a huge problem is American politics. It enforces a two-party standard and gives the parties far too much power, and it encourages extremism etc. And besides that, the primary system isn't even effective at preventing pluralities. Just ask Ross Perot.