SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,680
- 280
- Banned
- #1
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.
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.