Charley Reese the neo-nazi anti-semite
He's right on this point regardless of his other views. The primaries are an unmitigated disaster. I watched those old time conventions and they certainly did a far better job than the farce we have today.
I wouldn't ban primary elections. I'd simply ban public financing of them. If the Republicans or the Democrats want to have a primary election, let them pay for it.
The best way to greatly reduce the influence of big money in American politics is to eliminate the primary elections.
My God, Kerry is going to be the nominee!
Choosing nominees in primary elections was invented as a reform to get away from those famous "smoke-filled backrooms."
My God, Kerry is going to be the nominee!
As often happens with reforms, the reform has produced a greater problem than the one it was intended to solve.
My God, Kerry is going to be the nominee!
The best way to greatly reduce the influence of big money in American politics is to eliminate the primary elections.
My God, Kerry is going to be the nominee!
Choosing nominees in primary elections was invented as a reform to get away from those famous "smoke-filled backrooms."
My God, Kerry is going to be the nominee!
As often happens with reforms, the reform has produced a greater problem than the one it was intended to solve.
We're doomed, Kerry is going to be the nominee! And he picked a puppy to be his VP candidate.
Name a country anywhere in the world that, regardless of its political system, isn't run by money and the folks that have it.
If all nominees for statewide offices and the presidency were chosen by state conventions of the respective parties, then the influence of big money would be greatly diminished.
See, this is what I don't understand. It seems the author's entire point is that "the people" don't really have a choice. How do "the people" get a choice if it is political hacks doing the choosing? That's what I don't understand. Yes, it costs a lot of money to run in an election and the existence of primaries means it costs even more money. But primaries seem to be the only way true "grass roots" candidates have a chance. Please someone, enlighten me if I am wrong about this, since I see there are conservatives who agree with this writer.
If "state conventions" will get to choose the nominee from now on, how do the people get a choice? What if the "state conventions" are out of touch with what the people want? Is this man saying that the party machine should have the only say in who people get to vote for? Why is this a good idea?
If that were the case, then principled voters would NEVER be able to get rid of the moderates and leftists who have infiltrated the Republican party. Herman Cain wouldn't have a chance in Georgia, because the party would choose the more-recognizable Isaakson every time. Why would this be a good idea?
Primaries can also help push the eventual nominee closer to the views of the base, if he is rigorously opposed in the primary.
Please explain this to me, it doesn't make any sense.