Tired of the candidates picked to represent your party? There is a better way to run primaries.

Politics has grown more partisan and polarized, both nationally and here in Pennsylvania. That’s partly our fault: We have drifted apart more and more into two warring factions.

But the political system as currently constructed exacerbates our divisions. It produces legislative bodies in Harrisburg and Washington, D.C., that are even more divided and dysfunctional than we are. And that’s saying something.

Many worry the primary system helps drive this division and dysfunction in our state legislature and Congress. That’s because only the most committed partisans — the most die-hard Republicans and Democrats — tend to take the time to vote in their party primaries. That’s especially true in a closed primary state like Pennsylvania, where in primary elections, registered Democrats can only vote for Democratic candidates, while the same is true for registered Republicans.

In response, some propose reforms like open primaries, in which voters can choose any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. Other suggestions include ranked choice voting, in which voters can rank candidates by their first, second, and third choice, etc., which is then used to determine which candidate ranks highly for the most voters. This system avoids a scenario where, in a crowded field, one candidate can win with only 30% of the votes, even if they are strongly disliked by the majority of voters.

Much of this sounds reasonable enough in theory (and plenty of states already do have open primaries), but those proposals run into a problem: The state legislature would have to sign these reforms into law. But state legislators are the very people who have effectively navigated the system, as it is, to win office. In other words, primary reformers are asking the winners of the race to change the rules of the race going forward. That’s a big ask. Just look at Pennsylvania: State senators led by Republican Dan Laughlin and Democrat Lisa Boscola have introduced legislation to shift Pennsylvania to an open primary system. The bill hasn’t made it out of committee.

But there is a better way to choose the candidates to represent each party in a general election — and I was reminded of it following last week’s presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

Rather than seeking wholesale reform of primary systems, we should instead empower the parties themselves to decide how they want to select their nominees.

Pennsylvania lawmakers like State Sens. Laughlin and Boscola — joined by their Philadelphia-area cosponsors such as State Sens. Maria Collett and Art Haywood — could start by proposing a new bill to reform Pennsylvania law so that the local and state arms of each political party could determine how they want to go about designing their rules for selecting candidates for local offices, the state legislature, and other statewide positions like governor.

For example, parties could decide to scrap primaries entirely (instead opting for, say, a party convention) or go with ranked choice voting for some races, open primaries for others, or combinations of the two — race by race, office by office. And neither party would be constrained by the other’s choices: If Republicans opt for a closed primary in one race, Democrats could opt for an open primary in that same race, and vice versa. That might seem confusing and odd, but it gives each party the chance to decide for itself what best serves its electoral goals. In a purple district, for example, a party might purposefully structure its primary rules so as to increase the chances of a moderate candidate winning — thus positioning the party to win in the general election — even if the other party doesn’t.

A key advantage of this limited reform is that it would have a real chance at making it to Gov. Josh Shapiro’s desk. Instead of changing the system of voting themselves, state legislators would be giving the job to their respective state and local political parties. And since those legislators are presumably strong forces in their political parties, they won’t be worried the parties will choose a system that will kick them out of office.

Another big advantage is that this reform could empower the party organizations. That might sound strange: Isn’t the issue that the parties are too strong? No, partisanship is strong, but the parties themselves are quite weak — meaning, they have little influence on political candidates and people already in office.

That’s not a coincidence: If empowered, rational party leaders (that is, party leaders who want to win elections) are incentivized to support primary candidates who could win in a general election. And candidates who are more competitive in a general election are more likely to be the sorts of legislators willing to reach across the aisle once they arrive in Harrisburg or Washington. Depending on the race, a smart party is often more likely to push for a candidate who is middle-of-the-road, not a strong partisan, so when partisanship has the upper hand, parties don’t, and vice versa.

For now, party organizations are left outsourcing the power to choose their parties’ nominees to a small swath of super-engaged citizens (primary voters, often including activists and special interest groups). And those narrow factions often choose ideologically extreme, more divisive candidates.

I was reminded of the failures of our current primary system following the first presidential debate, when many began calling for Biden to step down from the race to enable the Democrats to select another candidate at the August convention. If that candidate wins in November, both parties might learn the lesson going forward, and create momentum for empowering the parties when it comes to selecting their own nominees.

By empowering party organizations to decide how they want to go about structuring the selection of each race’s nominee, the state legislature can vest a bit more leverage and control in the parties and their leadership. If the end result is less partisanship and polarization, that’s a good thing.

Thomas Koenig is a recent graduate of Harvard Law School from Oreland. @thomaskoenig98