I tend to get a kick out of news analysts who talk about how Democrats or Republicans need to do something. For example the fiasco in Iowa has been typically depicted as a failure of Democrats as opposed to the Iowa people who ran it.
Maybe the National party should take over but I don't think that is practical or desirable.
Meanwhile we still have candidates moving on to New Hampshire, another small non-representative state that we assign significant meaning to.
Now the primaries are messy and the media maks them worse. In past years certain candidates were eliminated after early primaries largely because donors gave up on them. O fcourse we also know primaries are not actually representative of either party because of the relatively low turnout.
Our whole process takes too long, costs too much and produces bad candidates much of the time.
Last election the two nominees were both disliked by more people then liked them but they became the nominees.
A better system would simply be to let all registered members of a party fill out a secret ballot just before the convention and use those results to pick a nominee. Not even sure we need a convention, but it does allow for negotiating platforms and kicking off the actual campaign.
Independents might object to being excluded, but of course if you want to participate, join a party.
I don't understand why the nominee for either party can be nominated because of non-party support.
Its unlikely to change because the current system is very profitable to some.
Still, I can dream of a system where the nominee is actually the one preferred by the majority, of the actual party members.
No comments:
Post a Comment