The United States should establish a national primary.

I agree that a majority rule is a good method in a democracy. A new point I have come to my attention and it regards the fact that a political party is not government run, but rather a private institution made to work for governments. This is shown when George Washington specifically stated that we should not have, "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party." Washington of course meant political parties, and how they would destroy the government because they weren't part of the government themselves. This shows that they aren't part of the government and as such don't require a democratic process, just like how a local small chain business doesn't have an elected president, but rather they are the founder or the founder's family/friends. http://www.heritage.org... One could show how he was fighting against this, and it is true, but America has gone through 200+ of political parties and we have made it through the Civil War with both Republicans and Democrats working together, and the Cold War where we did the same thing, but for 40+ years with 8 presidents, 4 of each party. The fact of what he is fearing though is still that they aren't part of the government and as such don't need to be guided by democracy. These all leads to my point, a party doesn't have to follow a government procedure, and as such could in theory just pick a candidate. This isn't done for the same reason Walmart doesn't sell sex toys, they do what will help them, Walmart staying family friendly so they can keep their credibility and not lose profits, while parties keep the process for the sake of keeping their respective conservative or liberal members. Now to disprove your arguments. The link you provided about the Romney v. Obama elector map showed that the states were divided 26+D.C. to Romney 24. This is a ratio of 88.88%, but the popular vote is 92.42%. If this doesn't show a difference and how majority rule isn't as majority as it is, 62.04%. This means that the popular vote is close to 46/50, but the state to state ratio is 44/50, and the elector ratio is 31/50. A majority does win, but what about in 1828, 1876, 1888, and 2000 when they didn't happen, so what would make a national primary with still party electors any different? Next is the point you put out with the surveys. I couldn't find them, so I will disregard them as they could simply have been from a satanic, brown, triple horned unicorn hove. The problem with campaign finances isn't caused by the differing primary dates and don't affect them. The following Wikipedia article, which can be used in this instance since facts as blunt as these are easier to show in a bulk article then having people switch from one to the other (links will be provided at the bottom) shows who won each GOP Primary state. It proves that while Romney won the nominee, Iowa was won by Rick Santorum, the first primary state, South Carolina was won by Newt Gingrich, the third state. This shows that states going first doesn't change the out come. https://en.wikipedia.org... Also, why would we want to open our closed primaries. Would you want Trump supporters voting for O'Malley so that neither Hillary nor Sanders could win their nominees and give the weakest of the candidates the chance to win and nearly assuring a Republican election. If you are suggesting that we have every nominee run and then the top 2 go on, then you are asking for a complete over hull of our American system, leading to a repeat of the 1837 banking crisis where the instant transition from bank notes to gold coins led to an economic collapse. A drastic change like this would almost certainly lead to some sort of collapse of our political system. http://www.sjsu.edu... http://uselectionatlas.org... http://uselectionatlas.org... http://uselectionatlas.org...