Does anyone else think that we should get rid of the primaries? I feel they do more harm than good for democracy and was wondering if anyone shared my view. If you don’t, I’m also curious as to why you do like them.
Some of my reasons for not liking them are: (1)They consolidate the Democratic and Republican parties into our democracy. (2)They give an unfair advantage to the Democrats and Republicans over other parties. (3)They lead to bad candidates running for president, forcing the American people to have to choose between crap and crap.
22 comments
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the way the primary process plays out is extremely stupid and pointless, but there’s nothing wrong with party members or supporters directly electing their candidates. I think it would be much better if we just had one nationwide primary (or at least each party had one nationwide primary, not every single party has to do it on the same day but the Democrats, Republicans, Greens etc should all do their primary on one day only).
The primaries are not what causes the two-party system. The first past the post voting system where one candidate wins each congressional district/senate seat/state in a presidential election causes the two-party consolidation, with an assist from the campaign finance laws.
The alternative to the primaries would be exclusively party brass choosing each party’s presidential candidate, which would be anti-democratic
We don’t have a parliamentary system, so dropping the primaries first would be tough. States would probably rebel and/or sue. I’ve lived in the UK under that system and it had as many upsides as downsides – for instance a 40% minority could get National control if the other parties didn’t get a higher %. Voting between crap and crap isn’t because of primaries though, it’s just a result of politics in general.
Unless we completely reformed our system, primaries are 100% necessary because our system favors 2 big parties. The people should chose their candidates. And honestly, the primary system makes in much easier for new ideas into government than if you had to form a new party like you do in most of the world. I would much rather our crap choices be our own making than that of our political elite
I mean, you CAN’T in total. You can reduce government interaction with them but the parties are private bodies free to determine who to support in an election in whatever way they choose. If they decide to hold an election among members to decide that you can’t stop them. You could certainly wind up making it harder to access, though.
No, I like primaries and wish the non-crazy voters would participate in them.
Saying this as a frequent primary voter.
I am a fan of the parties nominating their own candidates and paying for it themselves. In Indiana we already have nominating conventions for most of the state-wide elected offices, as well as precinct captains that can elect when a vacancy occurs.
I am not a fan of the government paying for a party’s private affairs.
You could remove government support for the primaries, but I doubt you could stop them beyond that.
The other parties also have primaries and national conventions. They just go largely unnoticed.
Nothing stops “good candidates” from running. Plenty of third party candidates have done so, Eugene V. Debs (communist, from federal prison) and H. Ross Perot are two huge examples that got many, many votes.
Incumbents in most areas would love to get rid of primaries. If incumbents didn’t have to worry about primary challenges from their own parties, most would have permanent jobs, no matter what, right? Most incumbents don’t really worry about challengers from the opposing party.
Primaries aren’t the problem.
If we truly want to move away from a 2 party system we have to abolish the electoral college.
Primaries are fine and really aren’t even the reason we have a two party system
Primaries are private events – you cant eliminate them. They’re constitutionally protected.
You could have primaries of multiple parties. That’s not what causes the two-party system. What causes the two-party system is caused by the first-past-the-post winner-takes-all election system that we have, instead of a proportional election system.
Your complaints (valid or not) have nothing to do with the Primary system.
How else should we choose nominees? I’m in favor of reforming the primary process (for example by randomizing the order states vote in) and making it easier for third-parties (Alaska seems to have a good idea for practical ranked choice voting). However, we would still need nominees.
And replace them with what, smoke-filled rooms? What is your suggestion for choosing a party’s nominee if not a primary election?
If you are suggesting a completely different system like multiple-member constituencies with ranked choice voting, sure, I love the idea but it ain’t gonna happen.
They’re a necessity without a multi-party or parliamentary system. I just wish more people would participate in them.
This is why primary and actual election days should be national holidays
Primaries are valuable because you get to see more of the various hyper politically driven members of each party. And getting to see them debate is VERY valuable.
The alternative to primaries isn’t multiple parties, the alternative to primaries is what was called the “smoke filled room”, where party hacks picked the candidate by trading delegates in private without any public input.
Other than maybe the president, which is a bit complicated, all public primary elections should be replaced with a 2-round system like much of the world uses, but with all candidates (including maybe multiple ones from individual parties) are on the 1st-round ballot.
Some states already have that. The two options used are (a) the two top vote-getters (regardless of what parties – maybe even two from the same party) go on to a runoff election; or (b) the same, but if someone gets 50%+ of the vote in the first round they win outright with no second round.
Non-partisan “jungle” primaries like these allow everyone to have a vote that counts, unlike in gerrymandered districts today where a small number of voters from just one party effectively choose the winner in their partisan primary; the general election is just a formality to coronate the winner.
You’re thinking of this the wrong way. The Democrats and Republicans are two political *coalitions*. They are parties in name but act as coalitions would in parliamentary systems. The primaries are how we sort out which faction is most popular this election cycle. What others consider parties we see as those factions. Which yes, there are factions within both the GOP and the POS…..err I mean Democrats. For example the Repuicans are not all conservatives, that’s merely a faction within them. Which makes me chuckle sensibly everytime someone uses the term conservative and Republican interchangeably. Way to tell me you don’t know what either is without coming out and saying it, LOL. So no, we shouldn’t get rid of primaries. We should encourage **more** people to participate.