Yes, if you start with the assumption that there are political parties and each such party chooses a single nominee.
But why do we make that assumption? Because under the single-vote-plurality system, parties and single nominees have evolved as the best way to avoid "vote-splitting", where two or more similar candidates who would each get majority support instead split their shared supporters and both lose to a third candidate whom either would have beaten one-on-one.
Condorcet voting is all about comparing candidates one-on-one. If Bob is more popular than Anne, and also more popular than Chris, then obviously Bob should win the three-way election, right? But that doesn't happen in single-vote-plurality, and it doesn't happen with instant runoff.
In the context of a Condorcet (or Borda, which is similar but not identical) voting system, vote-splitting isn't an issue, and parties don't _need_ to each pick a single nominee because there's no harm being on the same ballot with a candidate you largely agree with. If you don't win, maybe your ally will, and your presence on the ballot hasn't hurt your ally. (And the state can save tax money on running party primaries: just put all the qualifying candidates into the general election.)
I'm sure there would still be political parties in a Condorcet-voting world, but they would have less gatekeeping authority. In particular, we wouldn't have party primaries picking a left-extremist and a right-extremist to run against one another, both parties excluding the centrists because primaries are dominated by extremist voters.
Wow, I am really relieved that this proposed voting system would provide us with only a reactionary conservative who lies most of the time in synch with Trump and votes with Trump in every way possible - including not to impeach Trump regarding the democracy-threatening events of January 6, 2021 - instead of a criminal like Paxton who in almost every other legislative way would act just like Cornyn. A voting system, no matter how fair and prudent, will not save the United States from the moral bankruptcy and ignorance of its voting population. The problem with American democracy, just like most failing businesses, lies with the ownership, which is us, the citizenry. Neither Jon Cornyn nor Ken Paxton is an appropriate person for occupancy of a U. S. Senate seat because they both have drunk the MAGA elixir - but their actions are mostly rational with regard to their goals of being successful politicians and powerful people, which in this case are diametrically opposed to being effective and honest public servants. MAGA, a product of over thirty years of right-wing hyperbole, lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories filtered through unregulated and commercially-driven media, is both a chronic and acute affliction of the people, who have now found their avatar in Trump and will look for others as the sickness maintains and possibly expands its hegemony. Those who wish to lead it will only figure a way to dance to its tune, and unless true moderates emerge from the right - the left, contrary to dishonest or ignorant opinion, has many moderates - who are willing to contradict MAGA - no voting system will curtail our maladies.
You make good points, and a voting system won't cure all these problems at a stroke, but it'll help. Remember, both Cornyn and Paxton got where they are by winning closed party primaries, appealing to the extremists in their own party. A better voting system would have either (a) obligated them to make fewer promises to the extremists, or (b) allowed a moderate Republican to appear on the general-election ballot alongside them.
Shouldn't political parties be allowed to determine their nominees?
Yes, if you start with the assumption that there are political parties and each such party chooses a single nominee.
But why do we make that assumption? Because under the single-vote-plurality system, parties and single nominees have evolved as the best way to avoid "vote-splitting", where two or more similar candidates who would each get majority support instead split their shared supporters and both lose to a third candidate whom either would have beaten one-on-one.
Condorcet voting is all about comparing candidates one-on-one. If Bob is more popular than Anne, and also more popular than Chris, then obviously Bob should win the three-way election, right? But that doesn't happen in single-vote-plurality, and it doesn't happen with instant runoff.
In the context of a Condorcet (or Borda, which is similar but not identical) voting system, vote-splitting isn't an issue, and parties don't _need_ to each pick a single nominee because there's no harm being on the same ballot with a candidate you largely agree with. If you don't win, maybe your ally will, and your presence on the ballot hasn't hurt your ally. (And the state can save tax money on running party primaries: just put all the qualifying candidates into the general election.)
I'm sure there would still be political parties in a Condorcet-voting world, but they would have less gatekeeping authority. In particular, we wouldn't have party primaries picking a left-extremist and a right-extremist to run against one another, both parties excluding the centrists because primaries are dominated by extremist voters.
Wow, I am really relieved that this proposed voting system would provide us with only a reactionary conservative who lies most of the time in synch with Trump and votes with Trump in every way possible - including not to impeach Trump regarding the democracy-threatening events of January 6, 2021 - instead of a criminal like Paxton who in almost every other legislative way would act just like Cornyn. A voting system, no matter how fair and prudent, will not save the United States from the moral bankruptcy and ignorance of its voting population. The problem with American democracy, just like most failing businesses, lies with the ownership, which is us, the citizenry. Neither Jon Cornyn nor Ken Paxton is an appropriate person for occupancy of a U. S. Senate seat because they both have drunk the MAGA elixir - but their actions are mostly rational with regard to their goals of being successful politicians and powerful people, which in this case are diametrically opposed to being effective and honest public servants. MAGA, a product of over thirty years of right-wing hyperbole, lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories filtered through unregulated and commercially-driven media, is both a chronic and acute affliction of the people, who have now found their avatar in Trump and will look for others as the sickness maintains and possibly expands its hegemony. Those who wish to lead it will only figure a way to dance to its tune, and unless true moderates emerge from the right - the left, contrary to dishonest or ignorant opinion, has many moderates - who are willing to contradict MAGA - no voting system will curtail our maladies.
You make good points, and a voting system won't cure all these problems at a stroke, but it'll help. Remember, both Cornyn and Paxton got where they are by winning closed party primaries, appealing to the extremists in their own party. A better voting system would have either (a) obligated them to make fewer promises to the extremists, or (b) allowed a moderate Republican to appear on the general-election ballot alongside them.