This just occurred to me

There’s something to be said for France’s election-style: By having a 2-vote system, the first where anyone can be a candidate and the second, a run-off between the top 2 finishers, allows for voters to have a reactive vote and then a proactive vote. Millions of French people voted for Le Pen in the initial round. This was a voice against the status quo, the seeming inconsequence of the people in the politicians’ eyes. It meant the end of Jospin, who I had thought would likely win the election, observing from afar. But now, voters have had their say, and now they’re ready to elect a leader. They are voicing their displeasure with Le Pen, and various political factions are allying against Le Pen. This means that France will once again vote in the safe bet, Chirac, which isn’t the best result, but a far cry better than voting Le Pen (not that he was first in the first vote, but still). Could you imagine if we had a say like that here? In the first vote, millions of Canadians could safely vote for The Alliance, The NDP, the Rainbow Party, whatever, as protest against the Liberal Juggernaut, then, when push came to shove, if the second candidate was a freak (Alliance, Rainbow Party), they could then vote the ‘safe’ choice, and if the 2nd candidate was more reasonable (non-Alexa NDP, PC), then the run-off becomes more interesting.

So the downside to this is that I would think it tends towards a centrist president, but it really would go a long way to prevent what has become a common problem in Canada, the reactionary vote.