The ballot instruction is to "vote for only one candidate". A single vote system means single round elections. Since there's a group of voters, 3rd candidates could create a possible spoiler scenario, so the field usually has to be reduced to just 2. The media compound the division by going negative against the sole opposition party rather than educate the voter, resulting in reps that bring about bad policies. 3 candidates would usually require 2 rounds. In an elimination round contest, you would "rank your candidates in order of preference". 5 rounds for up to 5 designations would safely allow 6 candidates.
Taking it a step further, the ballot wouldn't have any names. The 6 slots would usually go to the better funded. The candidates can still be gamed by the media. Voters should not have their freedom restricted to choose from a list. Primary voting occurs way too early and is irreversible. An open even playing field will capture voter's true intentions more accurately. The primaries and parties that partially form around them wouldn't be needed if the general election were truly open. Shorter election seasons might make the voters more interested in shorter office terms, 3 years for senate, 2 for the president and others, federal and state.
A recall process should still be available. Signature gathering is unscientific and too expensive. A compendium of ranked choice polls would better ascertain whether a different person is preferred and a superior qualifying process to trigger an election.
The states currently make the rules for the national elections and voters can choose statehouse representatives who support change.
Wikipedia has a good page on another term, Instant Runoff, but only one candidate would be eliminated each round and 5-7 rounds minimum will likely allow at least one broadly appreciated person with unifying policies.
Even if there were more choices, uneducated voters could enter all the wrong names and incorrect choices are made within the current system, so it's equally important to address the huge deficit in policy knowledge.
