The U.S. system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

first off, Frontloading is part of the system, because states are doing it, but the system is allowing it to persist, which thus impends on the democratic value of a meaningful choice. Since the established procedure this year is a condensed primary season, it prevents individuals from a making a real meaningful choice as Stephen J. Wayne said, now onto my Iowa arguement. Jeff Greenfield. [Senior Political Correspondent, CBS News]. "The Brigadoon Complex: Where The Iowa Caucuses Went Wrong." Slate.com. December 31, 2007. http://www.slate.com.... Then there's the missing principle of "one person, one vote." More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court told the states they had to follow that rule in drawing legislative and congressional districts. The court told Georgia it had to dump its "county unit" rule for electing a governor—a process modeled on the Electoral College, that gave rural areas power out of all proportion to their populations. But the Iowa Democratic Party hasn't gotten the message. Rather than simply tabulating votes, its precinct caucuses calculate "state delegate equivalents," using a mind‐numbing formula based on past votes for Democratic candidates for president and governor. What this means, in effect, is that beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter if your candidate can turn out 200 or 10,000 participants in a particular precinct, because that precinct has only so much delegate‐purchasing power. It matters not just how many participants a candidate can turn out, but whether he can turn them out all over the place. A candidate who won a lot of the precincts narrowly would wind up winning a bigger portion of the delegates than a rival who piled up votes in one corner of Iowa—even if that corner yielded a higher overall number of supporters. It's all the disproportional representation of the Electoral College, in miniature. And that was the price for forming the Union, not a guide for running elections. What this means is that Iowa's system is a little different and impends on the one person one vote principle, it impends on political equality siad by Stephen J. Wayne, Now onto Super Delegates, he says, they have never went against the people, however, that is contrary, Hillary won Massachusetts, but senator Kennedy of that state is for Barack Obama, so they have gone against the people. Their are many examples, on is Alabama, where Obama won, but got one less delegate, which is the decider. The mere fact that super delegates are autonomous in the system is undemocratic, because it impends on political equality, by impending on the one vote one person idea. http://www.cnn.com... http://www.cnn.com... And then there is lobbying, because they are part of the system, and Barack Obama has given 690,000 dollars to 40% of his delegates, is not democratic, to have them in the system. Now onto Caucuses, he says, it doesn't stop anyone from voting, but that is contrary to his thoughts, it violates free and fair election codes according to the U.S. http://usinfo.state.gov... It violates the secret ballot, as defined voting by secret ballot ensures that an individual's choice of party or candidate cannot be used against him or her. two, it violates the absintee ballot, because they don't have one, allowing those who will not be able to vote on election day to cast their ballots prior to the election. One major example is in Nevada, http://www.washingtonpost.com.... Consider the Nevada caucuses set for this morning. Saturday is celebrated as the Sabbath by Jews and Seventh‐day Adventists. Synagogues hold Shabbat services on Saturday mornings and, perhaps more important, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from driving or doing other activity that could be viewed as work, which would include participating in caucuses. As the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, put it in a statement this week, "In a country that values religious liberty, no person should ever be forced to choose between practicing their religion and participating in their democracy." This is not a hypothetical problem; Nevada has one of the fastest‐growing Jewish populations in the country. Some people cannot vote on certain days, because of their reasons, and because caucuses are part of the system and elimnate this it is bad for universal suffrage. Disregard my opponents arguements, because, one they are not that important and two the reason why voter turnout is high, is not because of the system, but because of the people running in it. A african American and a woman are the reason for high turnout, look to the republican side, the Republican ticket is wrapped up already and it is a close race, but is that because of the system, no. The system is hurt in these ways to recap. It infringes on political equality with Caucuses and Iowa. It infringes on a meaningful choice with frontloading. It infringes on universal suffrage with caucuses and against free and fair elections. Super delegates have gone against the people, because they are autonomous it is against democratic values. Vote Aff