[Yo-Yo]

Basic difference in philosophy:

Primaries are a private organization choosing their candidate. Why should any state “run” a primary election for the political parties?

States run elections, parties choose candidates.

[VRWCmember]

over Earth's Greatest Democracy not living up to its self-image. Since "majority rule" is a major principle of Democracy, we can't legitimately define ourselves that way if everyone doesn't get to participate equally. And, since the form of government in our Democracy is a Presidential Republic, how is it that political parties are dictating the terms of participation for the voting citizens of sovereign States?

First, the author obviously fails to recognize that nowhere in our Constitution is a "democracy" called for.

Second, the Founding Fathers clearly sought to avoid a "Majority Rules" form of government which could just as easily be described as Mob Rule.

Third, the political parties can set up the rules for how their nomination is determined, and the various state parties can work within the national parties to effect changes in how they select the candidates. Also, if any state doesn't like how its electoral votes are awarded then that state has the complete and perfect right to change through its legislature how to award the electoral votes.

Finally, Florida and Michigan have no cause to complain about losing their delegates to the dem convention and half their delegates to the GOP convention because they knew full well they were violating party rules when they implemented the changes.

[VRWCmember]

Welcome to FR.

You will probably find that trashing the electoral college as “the most flawed part of the process is at the end” of the Presidential election process will not win you much support on this forum. It is the Constitutional process and is the rule by which EVERY President has been chosen.