The US System of Presidential Primaries is contrary to democratic values

(Note: Just want to run my pfd cases and argue 4 round debate) Whether it's winner take all or proportional representation; whether its primaries or caucuses; whether it's the decision to have super delegates or not, something needs to change It is because I agree with Hady Amr of the Brookings institute that we stand in firm affirmation of the resolved "The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values" To clarify we would like to offer the following definition from Webster's Dictionary of Contrary- Unfavorable or Adverse We will look to three areas of analysis today 1)Disenfranchised Voters 2)Minorities not being respected 3)Closed Primaries and Voter affiliation To Our first point Because of primaries voters are getting disenfranchised through many different aspects: First to New Hampshire and Iowa as The University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies reports The extraordinary attention paid to these states is further called into question when one considers their demographic composition "They are too homogeneous, They don't accurately represent the American populace. Indeed, the percentage of African Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire 2.1 and .7 respectively falls short of the national average of 12.3 percent The percentage of persons below poverty level also falls significantly short of the national average. As we can see there is no equitable representation in the early states which give some candidates momentum through the later states. This goes to show in a Study by Brown University which recorded early primary states have up to 20 times the influence of voters in later states in the selection of candidates. A New Hampshire Voter not only has more influence in determining the victor within the small population of his state he also gains a greater influence over the decisions of all remaining primaries. We can also look to Michigan in this situation who feels utterly disenfranchised as Kevin Wuzzardo Southern Interscholastic Press Association reports on January 15th 2008 that Many Democratic voters feel disenfranchised. The feeling is especially strong in Michigan where Barack Obama and John Edwards took their names off the ballot and where write-in votes won't be counted. A lot of African- Americans in Michigan are very upset about not having the chance to vote for Obama, the first black candidate to be a serious contender for President in History. We can see here that there is no equal Justice; you see less voter turnout and political efficacy. We can also look to super delegates which supposedly can't cause much a difference however this proves to be untrue as we can look to the National Public Radio in February 6th 2008. Democratic hopefuls Clinton and Obama emerged from Super Tuesday neck and neck, separated by less than 100 delegates by most counts. This suggests -if the race continues to be similarly tight- that the technically uncommitted super-delegates could impact the final outcome. This shows no justice and definitely no equality among voters and this also shows a lack of political efficacy. To our second point The Republican System of Winner-Take- all really hurts the minorities as we can look to R. Lawrence Butler. Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rowan University who states Close doesn't count—you must win states and congressional districts. This also means that delegate allocation in Republican primaries can be wildly disproportionate to the relative level of support among the candidates; someone who wins just 51 percent of the votes gets 100 percent of the delegates. A candidate who wins a number of early states can open up an enormous lead in the delegate count. This shows even if the minority votes for another candidate only the majority gets there candidate across again hurting Equality, and equitable representation. Because we are voting for delegates not directly the candidates the minority doesn't get there voice across in the actual nomination of the president. To Our last point In a closed primary, you must declare in advance that you are a registered member of the political partying whose primary you wish to vote. This becomes a major problem for Independent voters, or people who do not wish to identify themselves with a political party. It is assumed that after the hard times our country has gone through over the issue of voting, that we can now guarantee universal suffrage to those 18 or older, but closed primaries do not. If an independent wants to have the ability to vote in a closed primary, which, according to Professor James Q. Wilson of the University of California, about 40 states employ, they have to be a member of that party. If they are not, they cannot vote. In his book on American Government, Mr. Wilson states how America is moving towards a trend of decentralization of the political parties, that is, less people identifying themselves with a party. The American National Election Study from 1952 to 2000 found that overall, the amount of people identifying themselves as democrats dropped 22 %, republicans dropped 14%, while independents increased by 23%. The decision they have to make is this: 1) change from their independent identification and side with a party which infringes on personal liberties, or 2) lose their right to vote which thus everyone is not getting their voice heard. Based on the three previous areas of analysis we look to an affirmative ballot