It doesn’t take a seasoned political pundit to understand why MPs might be hostile to any change to our democratic process that puts their job security at risk. That’s not because taking a seat in parliament is an easy option: there’s the online abuse and late-night sessions, the regular cross-country travel and the responsibility inherent to the position. And, apart from the very safest of seats, you could be out of a job whenever the next election may come. Nonetheless, serving your country while attempting to put your beliefs into practice is a privilege. The pay, the perks and future job prospects are not to be sniffed at either.

Since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader back in 2015, few issues have caused as much division within the parliamentary party as the question of trigger ballots. Or is it deselections? Mandatory reselection? It’s impossible to keep up with the terminology. Whatever it’s called, the fundamental question remains the same: should local Labour party members be able to replace their current representative ahead of an election, if they believe there’s someone better for the job?

If you, like me, believe in the principles of democracy and participation, then surely the answer is yes. It is not just Corbyn supporters who think this – trigger ballots aren’t the creation of Corbyn’s Labour, although the process was slightly streamlined at Labour conference in Liverpool last year.

However, those who are opposed rarely make their case as one of personal interest – although that is surely part of the consideration – and some of the criticisms raised require careful thought. Some Labour MPs speaking anonymously to this paper were concerned that reselections and trigger ballots would be a distraction from an increasingly likely 2019 general election. They could shift the focus from tackling the Tories to internal Labour politicking, while eating up an incumbent’s resources, energy and time. Where I differ from them is my belief that the solution to these concerns is not to retreat from further democratisation and public engagement – but to be more ambitious.

The biggest flaw in the current process – one conveniently overlooked by those resisting changes – is that they don’t go far enough. More radical proposals could solve these problems and many more. Just look to the US and their primary election model. Both open and closed primaries allow the American public to pick who will run as a candidate. The former – as used in many US states for presidential candidates – lets all voters pick one party to select a candidate for. The latter requires you to register as a supporter for your chosen party before you’re given a say.

The rigid nature of the US electoral cycle ensures primaries aren’t a distraction from elections but are an important part of the democratic process. They encourage the public to invest support in candidates before election day and to scrutinise them and their platforms – something evidently lacking in our system. It also allows young, fresh faces such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ilhan Omar to emerge, where otherwise they might have been blocked by large party machines.

Despite the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, in reality British prime ministers are still able to call a general election whenever the idea takes their fancy (say while walking through the countryside) and, as such, a British version of such a system would need to be modified. Legislation should be passed – with the buy-in of all parties – to create a designated primary period in advance of any general election campaign. Candidates would no doubt posture, prepare and engage with communities in advance, but frankly that’s behaviour that should largely be encouraged. “You’re being too involved in your local community” is hardly an effective criticism.

A process such as this would open up those with “job-for-life” seats – such as Tom Watson or Jeremy Corbyn or Philip Davies (insert personal bugbear here) – to be held accountable and scrutinised, while ensuring they don’t forget who they are there to represent. In marginal seats there would be fewer candidates slipping through the net who later appear unfit for office.

Requiring those throwing their hat into the ring to have been a party member for a certain period – say a year – seems eminently sensible; as does requiring them to be able to demonstrate their views aren’t opposed to the party’s overall ideology and aims. Perhaps a certain number of nominations should be needed from other local members.

As for whether primaries should be open or closed, what’s important is that the opportunity to have a say is opened up to as wide a pool as possible. Closed primaries need not only include fully-fledged paid-up party members. Why not – as is the case in the US – allow for voters to instead become registered supporters for local primaries, too? Why not make this free – on a constituency level – to try to encourage them? If voters like what they see, they may well sign up. A more involved democracy would surely only benefit us all in the long run.

Rather than portraying a need to spend time in your community and respond to it as a hindrance or waste of time, this way we can ensure that MPs from all parties remember representation is part of their core purpose. I’d argue that trigger ballots and reselections would help us on this path – but only by ensuring that every candidate from every party goes through a primary process would we be sure that everyone is on an equal footing, and that no one party is disadvantaged ahead of an election due to internecine struggles.

Instead of focusing on Labour, we should discuss a more fundamental change to the way candidates are chosen by all parties, and open up the process. Let’s not allow refreshing our democracy to become a battle between the Labour left and right; there are bigger fights to be had.

• Michael Segalov is a contributing editor at Huck magazine, a freelance journalist and author