A much better idea is to get rid of the primary process and implement ranked choice voting instead.
This is also why Hillary's nomination was alarming to anyone with a sense of how almost all Republicans and a lot of blue-collar Dems viewed her (rightly or wrongly—doesn't matter). Her nomination was a huge, free boost to R GOTV and gave the Ds an uphill battle for GOTV on their own side (again, doesn't matter whether that was "fair", it just was).
The current voters do; we don't necessarily know how people who don't currently vote would behave.
Much to my surprise, the "milquetoast" has had one of the most successful starts to a presidency ever. Whether it is the civil war (uncivil??) within the GOP or the fact everybody underestimates "Sleepy Joe". He has had a great start to his presidency.
Any non-Trump candidate would look good just by not tweeting at 3.00am. Sleepy Joe is more effective than Sax-playing Bill or No drama Obama because no one is paying attention. And that is good for America and the world.
I think a strong argument could be made that this is already the case.
I don't think the solution is to use ranked choices though.
I think the solution is to make voting rights contingent on full time work or taxes paid (whether through work or capital gains). As long as you work full time or pay an equivalent in federal taxes of a full-time minimum wage employee (before deductions, because I realize minimum wage employees pay almost no taxes to begin with), you get to vote.
You might think this is draconian, but without using any emotion and trying to be purely logical, can you think of one reason why somebody who doesn't pay any taxes or work full-time should have a vote on the government that is funded by tax dollars from other working people? It doesn't mean people who don't work or worthless or should be marginalized in anyway; it means that they don't have a place in the political world, because politics is for government and government is designed to manage people and is paid for by the people who build the society that is being governed. Those who don't want to participate in this society by working have choices, they can stay at home and play video games or they might be a stay at home husband or wife or whatever, or they might just be somebody who wants to sleep in the park, whatever the case, it doesn't mean that they are a worthless human, but they are not really an active participant in the economy being governed. If I'm a stay at home husband and my wife works, my wife gets a vote and I can hopefully attempt to persuade her if I have an opinion, but if I'm not participating in the economy, I don't expect that I should have the ability to make choices about with my wife's taxes are spent on.
Of course the exception would be those in retirement who did previously work.
I think that's a fair trade.
Yes, I do. Because moving around cash isn't the only thing a modern government does. Governments hold immense power over each and every citizen, and as such, each and every citizen should have a say in how governments are run.
TLDR: If you can send me to fight in a war, you'd better have me have a say in the decision.
You say this as if the last administration somehow didn't exist? Analysis of the mobilization power of the Trump campaigns will go on for decades and decades, but among the reasons for his appeal the notion that it was somehow due to consistent and well-explained policy positions has to be dead last. I mean, please.