Posted on 02/19/2020 7:20:42 AM PST by maggief
The Washington Post is taking criticism for an op-ed published Tuesday by Marquette University political science professor Julia Azari, titled: “It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president.”
Citing the “rocky start” to the Democratic Party’s presidential primary, Azari suggests that the process of choosing the nominee be taken from the people and returned to the politicians:
The current process is clearly flawed, but what would be better? … A better primary system would empower elites to bargain and make decisions, instructed by voters.
One lesson from the 2020 and 2016 election cycles is that a lot of candidates, many of whom are highly qualified and attract substantial followings, will inevitably enter the race. The system as it works now — with a long informal primary, lots of attention to early contests and sequential primary season that unfolds over several months — is great at testing candidates to see whether they have the skills to run for president. What it’s not great at is choosing among the many candidates who clear that bar, or bringing their different ideological factions together, or reconciling competing priorities. A process in which intermediate representatives — elected delegates who understand the priorities of their constituents — can bargain without being bound to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better reflect what voters want.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Who says who is elite? We’ve had our fill of you self-proclaimed betters. Your day of reckoning is coming.
I’ve got a better idea.
Let’s give the Elites no say whatsoever.
Only Nanzi and her fellow elite Democrat fascists are smart enough to select (not vote/select) our next president.
Does letting Ditch choose GOPee Senators and Trump’s AG work well?
Or pot smoke-filled rooms. Dude!
I’ve always believed no SSN = no vote
they really just don’t get it. they really don’t.
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.
You have to hand it to the Dems!
In 2016 the WikiLeaks SHOWED the depth and breadth of REAL collusion between the Democrat Party and its brazen propagandists, the MSM.
But still, the channels of control and coordination remain obviously in place, undisturbed.
I can just see in my mind’s eye, the flashing emails and text-messages about “laying the groundwork” for the Convention hijacking that are behind this one.
give them one candidate and one party to make mandatory voting easy
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.
Fine, Azari. How does one become an elite? And how does one become a politician?
Eat the elites.
Winner!
Dems need to put into practice their opposition to the electoral college by the example of having a one day nationwide primary with the top vote-getter getting the nomination without further ado.
“...It advocates letting the parties pick the candidates.”
Still smoke filled just a different plant.
Jeb!
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!
Did they amend the super delegate rules at all? Bloomie can buy them off as old pro says.
“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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.