Changes could improve elections

Well, that was brutal.
It seemed in the weeks leading up to Election Day there was one thing most were able to agree on. We were ready for it to be over.
This election cycle was rough on the nation, and for more reasons than just that the two major-party candidates for president carried the highest disapproval ratings in history.
So here are some suggestions on how we can avoid such a debacle next time:
•Shorten the election cycle.
The first Republican primary debate was Aug. 6, 2015, a full 15 months prior to the general election. Eleven more followed.
Members of both parties were declaring their candidacy months before that. It’s no wonder that a year-and-a-half of election talk left us weary.
How about this: The first day to file to run for the presidency is Jan. 3 of the election year. (That’s typically when candidates can begin filing to run for local offices like commissioner and council anyway.) The deadline could then be sometime in February, with primary debates (far fewer of them) to follow in March or April.
•Eliminate government-run primaries.
The immediate argument against the above idea is the current primary schedule. This year’s Iowa Caucus was Feb. 1. The New Hampshire primary was Feb. 9.
Our question is, why is the government holding primaries at all? Why are we, the taxpayers, footing the bill for the parties to select their nominees?
Let’s leave the parties to select their own candidates. At the local level, they could do it in caucuses. At the national, it could be conventions.
The result would be parties having greater control on who they nominate and spend money to support. That likely would have meant no Donald Trump this year or Barack Obama in 2008, but a system in which the government isn’t running the selection process for the two behemoth parties would also make it easier for third (or fourth or fifth) parties to arise.
It would save taxpayer money. It would be more fair for all political parties.
That seems like a win-win.
•Enact stricter debate rules.
When it is time to get the candidates together on stage, the Commission on Presidential Debates should set rules and enforce them. If a candidate gets two minutes, he or she gets two minutes.
It’s one thing for a candidate to be in mid-sentence and then finish the thought after a moderator indicates that time has expired. It’s another to continue on and on well beyond the allotted time.
We should put an end to the constant interrupting as well. We don’t allow such behavior in kindergarten. We shouldn’t allow it in our debates for those vying to be our nation’s leader.
Let’s also do whatever we can to ensure that candidates are actually answering the questions that have been asked, rather than immediately turning to talking points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
••••••••••
Elections may still be slogs, because there will always be negative campaigning. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to improve the process. 
Maybe then as Election Day 2020 approaches we won’t be so exasperated by our own political system. — R.C.