Primaries are a failure, they should be eliminated.

[SwimExpert]

If a political party is going to run a candidate then have to select a candidate, i.e. a nominee, by some means. They can select that nominee any way they want. The system that has been employed for decades now is the primary system. Which is really just a form of the long existing convention system. But the primary system is an abject failure and has been a major contributor to the perpetual lock of low quality candidates.

The founding fathers recognized that democracy contained certain negative repercussions that needed to be mitigated. They created a system with some democratic elements, while shielding and safeguarding in other instances. The primary system creates a "double infection" of all the things that are negative about democratic rule (i.e. rule by mindless mobs). That is to say, it creates a double filter whereby the slop is passed on to the next round, setting up a choice between alternate slops.

Each party's goal is to win the election. To that end they must endeavor to present the candidate with the best chance at success in the general election. But primary systems aren't designed to present the candidate with the best chance at success, they present the candidate who is most popular among select groups. Popularity among select groups can, and often is, divorced to general election prowess. Never has this been more visible than in the 2016 election. Donald Trump has very poor ability to win a general election, and will lose to either Clinton or Sanders. Kasich was the candidate with the greatest ability to win a general election, and he was largely ignored in favor of showmanship and endorphins. Clinton's ability to win only exists when pitted against a candidate who is even worse than herself (such as Trump). While Clinton is adequate to defeat Trump, Sanders actually would defeat Trump by wider margins. Same with Cruz. Sanders also would have likely emerged victorious against Kasich. This first line democratic filter filters out the candidates with the best general election prowess, because the masses do not care about general election prowess. They care about their personal favoritism towards a candidate.

The failure of the primary election system is becoming all the more prominent as an increasingly strong movement grows for open primaries in conjunction with malicious trojan voter registrations. The increasing amount of cross party sabotage is rendering the primary system not just inept, but positively broken as well. Instead of being a selection by the party. The primary system has lost its purpose of being a method for a party to select its nominee, and is becoming a redundant "pre" election election.

Eliminating the primary system is necessary to avoid the continual downward trend of low quality candidates, and for the parties to maintain control over their identity.

 

[TNHarley]

Hopefully your boi will run on the democrat ticket in 2020

 

[JakeStarkey]

Turn the nominating process over to party caucuses and you will find out just how badly the working man will be screwed.

 

[SwimExpert]

Turn the nominating process over to party caucuses and you will find out just how badly the working man will be screwed.

That statement has no basis in logic or fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Turn the nominating process over to party caucuses and you will find out just how badly the working man will be screwed.

That statement has no basis in logic or fact.

Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three. Yes, my comment is rooted in logic and history. Trot along.

 

[SwimExpert]

Turn the nominating process over to party caucuses and you will find out just how badly the working man will be screwed.

That statement has no basis in logic or fact.

Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three. Yes, my comment is rooted in logic and history. Trot along.

No.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Turn the nominating process over to party caucuses and you will find out just how badly the working man will be screwed.

That statement has no basis in logic or fact.

Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three. Yes, my comment is rooted in logic and history. Trot along.

No.

A caucus allows extreme activists to control the nominating process, side stepping the will of the great majority of the party. The Utah experience demonstrated that and finally led to a bi-party revolt from grass roots to top to make the system a parallel primary and caucus option process. The nay sayers sound just like you.

 

[SwimExpert]

Turn the nominating process over to party caucuses and you will find out just how badly the working man will be screwed.

That statement has no basis in logic or fact.

Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three. Yes, my comment is rooted in logic and history. Trot along.

No.

A caucus allows extreme activists to control the nominating process, side stepping the will of the great majority of the party. The Utah experience demonstrated that and finally led to a bi-party revolt from grass roots to top to make the system a parallel primary and caucus option process. The nay sayers sound just like you.

Yeah, because Utah is the land of the ordinary. And what we have now isn't producing extremists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Turn the nominating process over to party caucuses and you will find out just how badly the working man will be screwed.

That statement has no basis in logic or fact.

Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three. Yes, my comment is rooted in logic and history. Trot along.

No.

A caucus allows extreme activists to control the nominating process, side stepping the will of the great majority of the party. The Utah experience demonstrated that and finally led to a bi-party revolt from grass roots to top to make the system a parallel primary and caucus option process. The nay sayers sound just like you.

Yeah, because Utah is the land of the ordinary. And what we have now isn't producing extremists.

Iowa? Idaho? Let the people decide, not the activists.

 

[SwimExpert]

That statement has no basis in logic or fact.

Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three. Yes, my comment is rooted in logic and history. Trot along.

No.

A caucus allows extreme activists to control the nominating process, side stepping the will of the great majority of the party. The Utah experience demonstrated that and finally led to a bi-party revolt from grass roots to top to make the system a parallel primary and caucus option process. The nay sayers sound just like you.

Yeah, because Utah is the land of the ordinary. And what we have now isn't producing extremists.

Iowa? Idaho? Let the people decide, not the activists.

So....you've got nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three. Yes, my comment is rooted in logic and history. Trot along.

No.

A caucus allows extreme activists to control the nominating process, side stepping the will of the great majority of the party. The Utah experience demonstrated that and finally led to a bi-party revolt from grass roots to top to make the system a parallel primary and caucus option process. The nay sayers sound just like you.

Yeah, because Utah is the land of the ordinary. And what we have now isn't producing extremists.

Iowa? Idaho? Let the people decide, not the activists.

So....you've got nothing.

I have it all, and all you can do is yurt and correll. Caucuses prevent the people from making the decision, which is kept in the hands of the bought off activists.

So we are back to "Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three."

 

[SwimExpert]

No.

A caucus allows extreme activists to control the nominating process, side stepping the will of the great majority of the party. The Utah experience demonstrated that and finally led to a bi-party revolt from grass roots to top to make the system a parallel primary and caucus option process. The nay sayers sound just like you.

Yeah, because Utah is the land of the ordinary. And what we have now isn't producing extremists.

Iowa? Idaho? Let the people decide, not the activists.

So....you've got nothing.

I have it all, and all you can do is yurt and correll. Caucuses prevent the people from making the decision, which is kept in the hands of the bought off activists.

So we are back to "Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three."

The most you have done is make a vague accusation, and extrapolated a speculative result if your accusation is true. Do not mistake me as a conjurer of cheap tricks. I am not Correll or Yurt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The vague defense is yours, swimexpert.

You offered nothing for the worth of caucuses.

I have shown that primaries are the will of the voters.

Why do you think the caucus is better than the primary?

 

[SwimExpert]

You offered nothing for the worth of caucuses.

You're right. Hell, I never said anything about caucuses, period.

 

[bendog]

If a political party is going to run a candidate then have to select a candidate, i.e. a nominee, by some means. They can select that nominee any way they want. The system that has been employed for decades now is the primary system. Which is really just a form of the long existing convention system. But the primary system is an abject failure and has been a major contributor to the perpetual lock of low quality candidates.

The founding fathers recognized that democracy contained certain negative repercussions that needed to be mitigated. They created a system with some democratic elements, while shielding and safeguarding in other instances. The primary system creates a "double infection" of all the things that are negative about democratic rule (i.e. rule by mindless mobs). That is to say, it creates a double filter whereby the slop is passed on to the next round, setting up a choice between alternate slops.

Each party's goal is to win the election. To that end they must endeavor to present the candidate with the best chance at success in the general election. But primary systems aren't designed to present the candidate with the best chance at success, they present the candidate who is most popular among select groups. Popularity among select groups can, and often is, divorced to general election prowess. Never has this been more visible than in the 2016 election. Donald Trump has very poor ability to win a general election, and will lose to either Clinton or Sanders. Kasich was the candidate with the greatest ability to win a general election, and he was largely ignored in favor of showmanship and endorphins. Clinton's ability to win only exists when pitted against a candidate who is even worse than herself (such as Trump). While Clinton is adequate to defeat Trump, Sanders actually would defeat Trump by wider margins. Same with Cruz. Sanders also would have likely emerged victorious against Kasich. This first line democratic filter filters out the candidates with the best general election prowess, because the masses do not care about general election prowess. They care about their personal favoritism towards a candidate.

The failure of the primary election system is becoming all the more prominent as an increasingly strong movement grows for open primaries in conjunction with malicious trojan voter registrations. The increasing amount of cross party sabotage is rendering the primary system not just inept, but positively broken as well. Instead of being a selection by the party. The primary system has lost its purpose of being a method for a party to select its nominee, and is becoming a redundant "pre" election election.

Eliminating the primary system is necessary to avoid the continual downward trend of low quality candidates, and for the parties to maintain control over their identity.

In many ways you're echoing Washington's distrust of political parties. He was the first, and only, potus not of a party.

I don't really have an answer. But, parties were established to generally stand for some principle. The federalists (forerunner of the gop or conservative party) was identified as favoring a more central govt as well as capital and trade. The republicans (forerunner of dems) was identified with less power from above and more direct democracy and agrarian interests.

I think it's unwise to actually focus on individuals rather than party principles. I think we're just seeing the end or Reagan.

After Reagan, the Gop has favored economic policies furthering income inequality, despite deceptions about less taxes and less govt. And, less nationbuilding that coalition building, despite thee biggest debacle since Vietnam, and possibly even worse in terms of international prestige and the ability go garner cooperation and coalition.

In response to Reagan, the Dems (or DLC) embraced free trade at labor's expense. They also stopped opposing replacing funding govt services (like educ and roads) with progressive taxes with direct cost to individual users.

As for individuals, Trump is simply a flawed reformer, because he's simply dishonest, and inconsistent and probably has no focking clue. Kasich was a true Reaganite. But the base wants no compromise. They misperceive their actual enemy. It is not the dems, it's the party leaders themselves. The Norquists. And the reformers, like the Kochs, have no one to support ... this time.

Bernie's preaching the old time liberalism. I really don't think, or want to, go back to 1968. And, while he possibly could beat Trump, he'd never get anything through congress. Nor would he succeed in electing a congress that would.

 

[bendog]

A caucus allows extreme activists to control the nominating process, side stepping the will of the great majority of the party. The Utah experience demonstrated that and finally led to a bi-party revolt from grass roots to top to make the system a parallel primary and caucus option process. The nay sayers sound just like you.

Yeah, because Utah is the land of the ordinary. And what we have now isn't producing extremists.

Iowa? Idaho? Let the people decide, not the activists.

So....you've got nothing.

I have it all, and all you can do is yurt and correll. Caucuses prevent the people from making the decision, which is kept in the hands of the bought off activists.

So we are back to "Either you are knowingly malignant, ignorant, or mentally feeble, or a combination or all of the three."

The most you have done is make a vague accusation, and extrapolated a speculative result if your accusation is true. Do not mistake me as a conjurer of cheap tricks. I am not Correll or Yurt.

I don't see how you can disagree that a caucus is less representative of the maj of a party's will than a closed primary. Now, closed primaries are where the tea party flourishes because there a minority of a party's voters who are highly motivated for change can tea party out a guy who would win if the entire state party voted. But, guys like Bernie, who is not really a dem, flourish in open primaries because people not registered dem can vote.

But, like I tried to say. I think you're slightly off track in blaming parties simply because they exist, rather on focusing more that both parties have ceased to represent the will of the rank and file - the gop even more so than the dems.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I never said "closed" primary in this thread.

A closed primary would allow the party members as a whole to make decisions rather than the select few.

An open primary would dilute the party's positions.

Bernie would beat Trump like a drum, and the Senate and House would remain Red.

Nothing would get done.

Clinton will probably win.

The question is: can she work with McConnell and Ryan to jointly govern if legislature stays Red.

 

[easyt65]

If the Parties are rig the primaries where the people's vote doesn't count anyway they might as well get rid of them.

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't see how you can disagree that a caucus is less representative of the maj of a party's will than a closed primary.

Where did my post say anything about a caucus?

 

[Little-Acorn]

If a political party is going to run a candidate then have to select a candidate, i.e. a nominee, by some means. They can select that nominee any way they want. The system that has been employed for decades now is the primary system. Which is really just a form of the long existing convention system. But the primary system is an abject failure and has been a major contributor to the perpetual lock of low quality candidates.

TRANSLATION: The results didn't come out the way I wanted. So now I want to take my ball and go home. Never mind that most people like the Primary system just fine. I want to get rid of it.