In its current state, the American political system has no end of ailments. Far too many factors accelerate polarization and work against moderation and narrowing the differences.

Media, and the way so many citizens limit themselves to agreeable, reinforcing sources, only dials up the division.

Congress has become performative and is essentially crippled in carrying out its legislative, budgetary and oversight roles as laid out in Article I of the Constitution.

The political money machine is cancerous and increasingly oligarchical. Moreover, the incentives are all wrong, sending larger and larger sums around through the backdoor with inadequate disclosure requirements and depriving candidates of both control and accountability for their own message.

I could go on. There is virtually no end of elements of the process that require repair and redress.

But for our purposes today, let me focus on what I regard as the foremost weakness of our system and the single biggest contributor to the tribal dysfunction.

In far too many cases, the summertime primary election has become all-important and the November general election is an afterthought.

Examples abound and are to be found in every part of the country. Here at home, the Democratic gubernatorial primary between Phil Weiser and Michael Bennet meant everything, while the general election this fall will be a noncompetitive, disengaged, perfunctory exercise.

The same was true two years ago on the other side of the aisle when U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, running in her adopted new district, won her party’s primary with just 43% of the vote before coasting to an easy victory in what was just a November formality.

Without question, part of the problem rests in a redistricting process that is nakedly partisan in too many jurisdictions. Shame on those here and elsewhere who have attempted to light a mid-decade match to the gerrymandering fire.

But redistricting reform, including that overwhelmingly mandated by Colorado voters in years past, can only do so much. The reality is that we have increasingly sorted ourselves into red neighborhoods and blue neighborhoods.

The sort not only involves the media we consume, our social circle – both real and online, the schools our children attend, if and where we worship and whom we date or marry, but also where we live and put down roots. The technical term used by experts is geographical self-sorting.

No matter the merits of competitive districts, in too many instances, they are impossible to draw. How do you create a legislative district within Denver in which a Republican would stand a chance? Or a district on the eastern plains of Colorado in which a Democrat is anything but a token candidate.

On a national scale, we are not about to see a competitive district in Queens or Brooklyn any sooner than in southern Missouri or west Texas.

According to one study, out of 435 seats in Congress, only 69 can be considered remotely competitive. Add in the factor of entrenched incumbency and the number at play in any given election is far fewer.

Of Colorado’s 100 State Senate and State House districts, the number that are truly competitive is a single digit that you could count even if missing a few fingers.

The fact that the primary election is everything and November is rather inconsequential in the vast majority of legislative districts, both nationally and here at home, means that lawmakers’ overriding concern is keeping their own partisans happy.

It is the reason why politicians on both sides are so ultra-focused these days on the so-called base. Our president leads the way in this preoccupation. Unaffiliated voters, much less voters of the other party, are of limited relevance.

The effect of this is as utterly predictable as it is abundantly evident. Democratic politics skew ever further to the left while Republican politics bend ever more to the right. It is all about keeping the base happy and energized.

When U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette’s 30-year tenure was brought to an end in Colorado’s 1st Congressional District, it was not at the hands of someone to the center or right of her, but to someone who outflanked her on the left. Politicians have a keen instinct for survival and that lesson will not be lost on others.

Given the limits of what can be accomplished through redistricting reform, my attention is more and more drawn to broader reforms of the election process to reduce the premium on partisan primaries. States such as Alaska, Washington and California have led the way in this pursuit.

A “Top Two” system may hold the most promise. Under such a plan, all candidates run in a single, unified primary with the top two finishers advancing to the general election.

Over the long haul, this cannot help but moderate the influence of the mass of unaffiliated voters and those aligned with the minority party in that locale, allowing them to select the less extreme candidate come November.

Critics and defenders of the status quo will squeal that such a system has potential flaws and downsides. Of course, they are correct. But then, I did not realize that perfection was a hallmark of our current arrangement.

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator. He writes regularly for Colorado Politics and The Gazette. Reach him at EWS@EricSondermann.com; follow him at @EricSondermann