Voters should have room to express a first choice and an acceptable alternative without abandoning the first candidate prematurely. The open primary also lets me consider candidates across party labels. I would keep that freedom and improve voter education, rather than remove choices because the counting process requires a little more explanation.

The two stages serve different purposes: the primary broadens the field voters can consider, and ranked counting allows later preferences to matter. That combination deserves evaluation on participation, ballot errors and public understanding. I favor keeping it while publishing those measures, rather than assuming a simpler ballot necessarily produces a more representative choice.

Rules should be predictable and easy for occasional voters to use. An open primary preserves a broad initial field, while a single-choice general election offers a familiar finish. That combination has its own tradeoffs, including the possibility of a winner below half the vote, but I would accept those tradeoffs for a simpler final decision.

I like seeing every primary candidate on one ballot, but I would rather make one final choice in the general election. Keep the part that gives voters broader access and change the part that many people find harder to explain. We do not have to accept or reject the two ideas forever as a single package.

Parties help organize competing platforms and make responsibility easier to trace. A nomination process should let their members choose a candidate before the general election decides among those alternatives. I prefer that institutional role to a primary field where several candidates with the same label may compete without a clearly shared program.

People should be able to identify a nominee, choose a candidate and understand the result without following several counting rounds. Party nominations also give members a clear role in deciding who represents their label. I would return to that familiar structure and let parties and independent candidates compete openly in a straightforward general election.

Narrow the field to two candidates before the final election, then let voters make a direct comparison. A top-two structure offers broad primary access and a clear final contest without ranked transfers. It can exclude a third candidate many people prefer as a compromise, but every election system makes a choice about when and how the field narrows.