That th U.S system of Presidential Primaries are contrary to democratic values

To clarify we this debate I offer the following definitions: According to Merriam Webster, System is defined as: an organized or established procedure thus in today's round we must look to the United States established Presidential Primary procedure so, as long as the affirmative team can prove in today's round that the Unites States established procedure goes against some democratic values we win today's round. Presidential Primaries- a method by which a political party chooses its nominees for public office. Winners of primary elections run against nominees of other parties in the general election. According to Merriam Webster, Contrary is defined as: a fact or condition incompatible with another so being that the resolution states that presidential primaries are contrary to democratic values, If we can prove that presidential primaries are incompatible with the established democratic values we will when today's round. According to (SEP) or Stanford Encyclopedia: A variety of different approaches have been used to show that democracy has this kind of intrinsic value. The most common of these come broadly under the rubrics of liberty and equality. So in today's round we must look to the essential values of liberty and equality as democratic values. Now to move on with the debate 1) Presidential Primaries do not offer an Equal Vote to all Super Delegates are playing a big role this year and being that the majority must rule in a democracy that doesn't seem to be playing a part in this years election being that the super delegates hold the deciding vote in the democratic party and do not have to side with the majority in fact they can go against the majority vote and elect the opposite person into office. According to a February 11, 2008 article posted on Democrats.Org by. Drew Zhu, Probably for the first time since the creation of super delegates, the Democratic party is faced with the real possibility that the final presidential nominee can be chosen by super delegates against voters voices, represented by pledged delegates. If that happens, it might cause quite a rupture within the Democratic Party, and it should. Now the problem is not whether the super delegates hold the deciding vote or not the problem is that the possibility of this to happen is there. "It's not the most democratic way of doing things," Main Super delegate Sam Spencer told CNN February 14, 2008. The fact is that Super Delegates have the power to go against majority rule and that they can strip the power from the peoples hands in doing so equality is harmed because for two reasons 1) Presidential Primaries are valuing Super Delegates votes more than the majority of the population and 2) The actual candidates chances for being a candidate for president are harmed because they could win the majority of the delegates vote and still lose the election because they didn't win the super delegates. If we look to our definition we can see how equality is being harmed by this because the super delegates hold a more powerful vote than the majority of the population. Being that democracy stands for majority rule we see that if the super delegates are making the final decision then it's a minority rule because they have the ability to go against the actual population not only does this go against democratic values but democracy as well. While utilizing super delegates you take away the power of the peoples vote and ultimately place it in the hands of the super delegates. 2)The right to vote for who you want to be president can be lost There are many different forms of primary voting, there is open and closed primaries. Open primaries allow you to vote for who you would like to be a presidential candidate no matter which political party the candidate is affiliated with. Only twenty states employ a version of the "open primary" system according to Rethinking the vote: The Politics and Prospects of American election Reform (Oxford 2003) an article found in Encyclopedia America. As I mentioned earlier there are closed primaries as well which hinder the voter to only vote for the party in which they are affiliated with this directly impacts back to the resolution in today's round because by not being able to vote for who you believe should be president is not democratic. This is contrary to the voter's liberty which as we can see in our definition is a democratic value because they are not able to exercise there freedom to vote for whom they want. By forcing a voter to stick within there party you will automatically will oppress the voter and thus you are not serving the people which is what democracy stands for and if you go against what democracy stands for you will always harm a democratic value. 3)Another system of primary voting is "top two" which is when the top two primaries candidates will be the two candidates for president. Now you might be asking how is this different from regular primaries, well the answer is that the "top two" primary winners can be from the same party and it could be a pure republican election. After Washington's attempt at "blanket primaries" was shot down by the courts: "The Washington state Grange responded by proposing a "top two" system in which the top two vote getters in a primary would be the candidates on the general election ballot, regardless of their party affiliation. Voters overwhelmingly approved the initiative in 2004, but it was quickly challenged by state political parties because of one feature of the new system. Under the new system, two candidates identifying themselves as Republicans could be the winners, and the Republican Party would have the option of endorsing either one. (According a FirstAmendmentCenter.Org article By.Tony Mauro on 10-01-07) This is a significant problem and is a clear example of how presidential primaries are contrary to democratic values. The possibility of having a one sided election is there, the possibility of not even having a democratic representative in the final election is definitely contrary to democratic values. Equality doesn't exist if there isn't a two party race because no matter the outcome there will be a Republican in office. With that said I would urge and Affirmative Ballot and Open the floor to the negation.