Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party should adapt the "Majority Preferential", or also refered to as the Alternative Vote, for a fair and truly democratic outcome in presidential primaries and caucuses.
Under the Alternative Vote system, regardless of the number of candidates, if a candidate garners a true majority [50+%] of all votes cast, then they are declared the winner.
But if no candidate garners a true majority [50+%] of votes cast, then a voters 'alternative or 2nd preference' is counted:
["Elections under Alternative Vote are usually held in single-member districts, like FPTP elections. However, AV gives voters considerably more options than FPTP when marking their ballot paper. Rather than simply indicating their favoured candidate, under AV electors rank the candidates in the order of their choice, by marking a ‘1’ for their favourite, ‘2’ for their second choice, ‘3’ for their third choice and so on. The system thus enables voters to express their preferences between candidates rather than simply their first choice. For this reason, it is often known as ‘preferential voting’ in the countries which use it."]
Why this 'preferential voting' would be better:
Under the current presidential nominating process in this country, far too often a candidate can "win" a primary or caucus "without" garnering a true majority [50+%] of the votes cast.
That means a candidate can "win" even though they were not the choice or preference of a majority [50+%] of voters.
We saw that play out in Iowa last night
It is clear from the vote tally that Mitt Romney was not the preference of well over 50+% of all voters.
But because the vote was split between more than two candidates, and there was no 'alternative vote'or 2nd preference possible, Romney wins and takes Iowa's delegates even though a clear majority of voters wanted someone else other than Romney.
Under the current primary/caucus nominating process, a clear majority of Iowa's Republican voters were just disenfranchised.
The Alternative Vote system, which also included a 'write-in preference' in addition to the listed candidates, would rectify such an un-democratic result.
It would also not involve the extra financial cost that a run-off or 'second ballot' would entail.
Under our current nominating process it is possible to end up with a nominee that does not have true majority support of voters.
And this is how the establishment can stick us with someone like Romney.