It should be apparent to anyone with a brain that the present system for winnowing the field doesn't work (If you define "work" as producing the best candidates).
What's wrong with letting the parties pick the candidates and let the people decide who wins? I can't think of a system that would produce worse candidates than we've been getting for the last 20 years or more.
Democrats: back to smoke-filled rooms. Minus the smoke.
Does letting Ditch choose GOPee Senators and Trump’s AG work well?
So in 2016 the parties would have picked Jeb! and Hillary.
Are you happy with that outcome?
I’m not and would have stayed home.
I don't know WTF that is supposed to mean exactly, but this op-ed pretty much exposes that entire organization as a bunch of comical frauds.
“...It advocates letting the parties pick the candidates.”
With that system there would be no Trump! How awful. Bite your tongue! Who the hell are you? A DU plant?
My God that system would only yield globalists , RINOS and socialists to choose from!
“What’s wrong with letting the parties pick the candidates and let the people decide who wins? I can’t think of a system that would produce worse candidates than we’ve been getting for the last 20 years or more.”
Hillary would’ve beaten Jeb in 2016.
The headline isn’t deceptive. Giving voters a choice of pre-approved options isn’t democracy, it’s veiled oligarchy.
Yes, the current system is imperfect. A slate of “normal” candidates loses by splitting the majority vote, giving a plurality to the outlier nutcase. Would be best at this point if the “normal” candidates were to huddle and decide which objectively has the best chance, the remainders checking out lest the nut win. Other solutions welcome for consideration, but most quickly prove little more than handing power to an unelected oligarchy.
The current system isn’t completely broken either. It’s how we got Trump: he was the outlier, and the remainder fragmented the majority vote so none could win against him (nor could they have won against Hillary). I’m not convinced Bernie isn’t the right choice for Democrats: fact is he IS the best embodiment of the party’s values, and the remainder are unelectable (vs Trump) twits. Bernie can’t win the general, but actually is the Left’s best chance to.
The problem with “Democratic Socialism” (which the article is premised on) is: who decides what goes on the ballot? if all options are practically indistinguishable, being whatever The Party would be happy with, why bother with voting?
That's actually what the current system used to be. Primaries are meant to be HOW parties picked candidates. The primaries used to all take place within a much shorter time span.
"Settled Law" still says, I think, that the parties control primaries, and the state just administers them in the manner specified by the party. I recall when a state, California I think, changed primary rules in a way that one of the parties did not like. The party filed suit and quickly prevailed, with the court ruling that the primary was to be conducted in a manner specified by the party.
Below is one example of current judicial sanity:
https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article236780358.html
In her decision, (South Carolina) Circuit Court Judge Jocelyn Newman said state law “unambiguously” says that the S.C. GOP has the right to decide whether it wants to hold a presidential primary, and because voters aren’t directly voting for a candidate in the contest, state law does not apply to the presidential primary.
You have a screw loose? That would suck. That British system of the party presenting us candidates that the little people have no say in choosing would have given us Jeb. There would have never been a President Trump.