The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values.

I would just like to express to my opponent that America is the only country with primaries. All other "democratic" nations have their parties nominate a runner. Instead, we as the people get some say as to who gets to run on the democratic ticket here in America instead of it all being the parties' decision (because they are the ones, after all, who are putting money and time and advertising...you get the picture, into the candidate). Primaries are a privilege, not a democratic right. Parties are giving us the privilege of helping them decide who gets to run on their money and time. Other parties don't even run primaries (like the Independent party), so Democrats and Republicans are giving us a choice where as these other parties are just choosing for themselves. Primaries weren't even a process until the progressive movement. Therefore, the primaries can't be anti-democratic values when America is promoting its citizens in helping choose who the parties have run on THEIR tickets. Points of a Primary: A. So that Democrats or the Republicans can decide on who is running with their party title. B. Second, the Democrats and Republicans want someone who will be able to beat the other party's candidate. C. The process of parties choosing their candidates is necessary in a 2 party system or there would be dozens of people running (like there were for the primaries) and the person who wins might have, say, 15%. Then huge majorities of people, like Evangelical Christians who make up a large percentage of our population, who usually vote alike will get their candidate in even if they are some wack-job most people think is insane. D. Primaries are just for parties to see who they should spend time and money on. Seeing who the population likes helps. As for people with money only getting into office, why don't we have a look at Obama. He has only served a small amount of time (as compared to the rest of his opponent, Hillary Clinton) in the government. He is pretty much a small fish. He actually failed in his election to the House of Representatives and is still on our ballot to become president because THE PEOPLE like him. As for "Super Delegates," why shouldn't the party who is investing time and money into this person get a say in who they want elected? These are the people that will have to work with him or her, pass bills with him or her. They are also the authorities in their fields and were voted into office by the people (so hopefully the people respect their decisions because they are the ones who are making and passing the bills on behalf of us, aren't they?). If you really wanted equal voting, you would set a standard and not need authorities aiding their parties in the elections (or the electoral college). As for a source on people's knowledge about basic civics (how government works), there was a study conducted by the Election Study. A short quiz was given with a percentage of correct answers removed from the study at the end. It amounted to 6%. If our citizens don't even know how the system works, how are they arguing that they have a right to make an uniformed decision. John Stuart Mill gave the best answer to this argument in Chapter 10 of his classic work Considerations on Representative Government: "The spirit of vote by ballot- the interpretation likely to be put on it in the mind of an elector- is that the suffrage is given to him for himself; for his particular use and benefit, and not as a trust for the public. . . This false and pernicious impression may well be made on the generality, since it has been made on most of those who of late years have been conspicuous advocates of the ballot.... Mr. [John] Bright [a prominent 19th century British Liberal political leader] and his school of democrats think themselves greatly concerned in maintaining that the franchise is what they term a right, not a trust. Now this one idea, taking root in the general mind, does a moral mischief outweighing all the good that the ballot could do, at the highest possible estimate of it. In whatever way we define or understand the idea of a right, no person can have a right (except in the purely legal sense) to power over others: every such power, which he is allowed to possess, is morally, in the fullest force of the term, a trust. But the exercise of any political function, either as an elector or as a representative, is power over others." As for closed primaries, it is quite simple. You do not want someone voting for both parties because you have party loyalties. With party loyalties comes rivalry (which is an obvious fact. I hope we know this). And who is to say that someone might not try to sabotage the other party by voting for a candidate of theirs who has no chance in Hades while still getting to vote for their candidate. It has nothing to do with Elitism or Anti-Democratic stances. Primaries are a privilege granted by the parties to have us aid them in choosing who will run with their money. If you don't want to vote for someone who runs primaries, you have other parties that would absolutely love your vote.