The enemy is not the government.

Since the New Deal, the general quality of elected officials has been spiraling downward. Problems in government that have always existed in small amounts have only recently drastically increased in occurrence.

This leaves you, the voter, with a serious problem. How do you elect someone from your district to a county, state, or federal seat and expect him to adequately represent you?

Here's an example. In Oregon, a measure is being put to the voters that deals with reforming currently land use laws. "58 percent supported the measure, while just 12 percent opposed it, and 30 percent were undecided (Riley Research Associates)." Now that may seem like a common statement in political affairs, however it means one thing that many people overlook. Someone in the legislature isn't doing their job.

The democratic ideology demands that elected officials act as an extension of their constituents, voting as their own voters would vote. In Oregon, and every state in the union, this process that once was popular, is now forgotten. The way at which we look at politics has completely changed, and now we are adrift in our own distressing problems.

The solution to this conundrum is simple, and has been spoken about for years. Change the election process.

Even though the primaries are efficient, they change the way that people look at politics. Instead of voting for a person's character in reflection of your own, you now vote because that person is apart of a party that somewhat resembles what you believe, if only slightly more than the opposing party.

So you cast your vote, and a candidate is elected. In many situations he now casts off that idea of being an extension of voters and now dawns the coat of his associated party.

That politician is now in diplomatic limbo between his or her constituents and his or her party. Even though he may have been elected because a majority of their constituents are associated with a certain party, a majority of them still may have issues that do not conform consistently with the party itself and the politician should represent that. If he does, he is alienated by the party, if he does not, he is cast away during the next election as a failed leader.

So the problem here may be the quality of the individuals elected, failing to find a balance between voters and the party. However, what significance does the party play in this process? The parties after the New Deal instituted the primary election and eliminated the possibility that a candidate could get elected without party endorsement.

Without the primaries a candidate who has a flawless character, endless leadership potential, and an independent thought harnessing both progressive ideals with conservative principles has a chance.

This candidate may well represent more than just 51 percent of the population, and thereby more representing the people of the United States in day-to-day affairs.

Therefore, if you end the party endorsed primary elections, you end the stranglehold that the parties hold on national politics. You end the polarization of America, and many of the problems that go along with it. Instead of fighting each other because their party mandates it, politicians might possibly focus on solving national issues with importance higher than Gay Marriage, Immigration, or Abortion. Don't get distracted by these issues. The focus on electing politicians should be preserving our freedoms, and how better to do that than by finding a process that can elect candidates who will better represent you?