The national furor over the 2018 midterms injected a dose of excitement into Hawaii’s general elections, an observation borne out by the bump in voter participation. The final tally was 398,398 ballots cast, representing 53 percent of the total registered voters.

That’s good — by recent Hawaii standards. The turnout for Tuesday’s vote beat that of previous midterm years, 2014 and 2010. However, according to the United States Election Project, the state still ranked last in the country, measured by its share of eligible voters. The nation’s overall turnout on that scale was 48.1 percent, compared to Hawaii’s dismal 39.4 percent.

What will it take to push more eligible voters to the polls? Better choices at the general election. Significant reform in the voting system is the only thing that will make that happen.

Hawaii’s Democratic Party-dominated state and local government has meant that many of the races are decided after the primary, as the Democrat often is unchallenged in the general election.

Additionally, the shrinking numbers of Republicans among elected officials has depressed GOP participation somewhat, even in the contested races.

And the power of incumbency has left many voters thinking it’s pointless to turn up. The election of a single Republican to the state Senate, Kurt Fevella, is the exception, but the rule still is in force.

But there is a path worth considering, one that could yield more vibrant primary and general elections. It’s a system used in Washington and California for all but presidential primaries, called the nonpartisan blanket primary, sometimes known as a jungle primary, qualifying primary or top-two primary.

All voters can cast for any candidate on the ballot, which is open to include all parties. The ones that proceed to the general are the top two vote-getters — regardless of party.

The benefit? Candidates on the general-election ballot are proven vote-getters, worthy of another look. The down side? Not all parties may be represented in the final choice.

California advocates hoped this system would both increase turnout and have a moderating effect on the candidates, with more centrist candidates likely ending up with more votes, said Colin Moore, associate professor of political science at the University of Hawaii. It hasn’t really yielded either of those effects, he said.

But it still could at least heighten the lure to Hawaii elections, which would have a different dynamic. The primary could attract more diverse candidates willing to challenge an incumbent.

Newcomers could see the goal of finishing in the top two as a lower hurdle to clear. Two candidates would end up with more time, over the course of the whole campaign season, to get their message out.

At the very least, the top-two primary affords more choice; Moore said it has been popular with voters on that score. He added that Hawaii voters would find it less confusing than another course of action aimed at boosting candidate diversity: a return to the multi-member legislative districts that the state once used. He’s probably right about that.

Where Moore, and others, are very right is in favoring the issuance of an official election guide for voters. People often stay away from the polls because they lack information about the choices before them, particularly complex ballot questions. That would be an easy fix for the state to implement.

The top-two voting format, though, would require a constitutional amendment. Getting lawmakers to put it on the ballot might be a tall order; incumbents tend to prefer the status quo. But the power of popular persuasion should not be discounted. It remains a tempting prospect for a public campaign to get such an amendment on a future ballot.

The state has made strides in easing registration and adding voter options. Expanding candidate choices for voters into the general could represent one more step in the right direction.