BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities

There is a large problem with lobbying in the United States but the influence they exert would be worse if there was no system. The efforts of interest groups would be exerted upon one candidate from each party, whereas Primaries make it harder for interest groups and 527’s to gain access to power as there are multiple hurdles for their candidate to overcome to win power and gain influence over policy. Primaries can also prevent capture of entire parties by interest groups as can happen in countries where funding of candidates comes directly from the central party such as the United Kingdom (where the role Trade Unions for example have 50% of the vote in the labour party conference[1]). Candidate discretion is more likely in Primary systems, giving more choice over what the general election candidate will support as opposed to just following the lead of the party leadership, which causes more disillusionment to politics in the long run.   [1] ‘Ed Miliband ‘plans to water down trade unions’ influence over labour’’, The Telegraph, 3 August 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/8678413/Ed-Miliband-plans-to-water-down-trade-unions-influence-over-Labour.html
Increasing voter engagement

A major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party. This issue would be countered by introducing Open Primaries for candidates to elections. By making candidates from the same party compete for a party candidacy by appealing to the same group that will choose between all parties in General Elections, voters will have a chance to greater examine each prospective candidate at greater detail, allowing for a more considered choice of candidate than the binary choice made at elections.[1] By giving more time to voters, this will increase interest in what candidates have to say, and allow those of all political persuasions to contribute to the debate, turning contests away from ideology and towards representation.    [1] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Conservative Democrats prove the case for open primaries’, The Telegraph, 18th July 2009, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100003880/conservative-democrats-prove-the-case-for-open-primaries/
Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities

A major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view. Open Primaries counters this by allowing these voters a chance to vote for candidates of a major party that are closer to their own political persuasion, thus giving as many people as possible the opportunity to register their opinion on who will be their representative for the next term, ending disillusionment with predictable election results. This means that third party candidates may become serious candidates in elections when they pass the primary test.[1] [1] Nielson, Susan, ‘Open Oregon’s primaries’, The Oregonian, 13 October 2008, http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/open_oregons_primaries.html
Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices

Open Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration. In safe districts, voters are given a choice between members of the same party, allowing for voters to effectively choose the next member based upon past record and views on big issues, allowing for the ideological cleavages within parties to brought under closer examination, with voters in the safe seat choosing the type of Conservatism/Liberalism/Socialism they prefer.[1] This can help to provide choice even when one party is already assured of winning the seat, thus providing a degree of competition in the district, engaging voters in the electoral process.      [1] Skelton, George, ‘California open primaries? Give them a chance’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/11/local/la-me-cap11-2010feb11
Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties

Primaries tend to favour candidates that are more centrist in nature, as non-committed voters are more likely to vote for such a candidate than grass roots members of the party hosting the primary, who are much more likely to prefer a candidate who is more ideological. The dominance of centrist candidates in primaries may lead to convergence between the major parties to the extent that there is little difference between them for voters to choose from in the general election.[1] This creates the harm of not presenting a clear democratic choice to voters, which can help feed the discontent with politics that discontent hopes will be countered by Open Primaries. [1] White, Stuart, ‘Why open primaries are a really bad idea’, NextLeft, 26 May 2009, http://www.nextleft.org/2009/05/why-open-primaries-are-really-bad-idea.html
Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities

Elections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are opposed to their interests (See the fate of Rep. Richard Pombo, who was defeated after a campaign by the Sierra Club[1]). Primary elections exacerbates this, with 527 groups affiliated to certain interest groups being able to lobby and fund numerous candidates in the primary to ensure that regardless of the result, their interests are best preserved. This can be harmful as it further allows for corporate capture of the election cycle, with candidates positioning themselves in relation to the aims of those who helped them gain the candidacy rather than the voters who put them there. This undermines the ability of legislators to arbitrate between competing claims when making law, creating less effective government.   [1] Carlton, Jim, ‘Pombo Embarks on Fresh Path’, The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575058372413222414.html
Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics

This happens in theory but in practise does not work this way. Precedent in the United States has shown that political discourse is still fractious despite the presence of Open Primaries as it is still the ideologically focussed base that that vote and decide such elections on a low turnout. Even if Propositions contentions were true, it can be argued that it is the lack of clear dividing lines between parties that can cause major disillusionment in politics, with many parties now subscribing to a broadly neoliberal world view as has happened in the UK where parties regularly cross-dress, appeal to the same groups and steal each other’s policies.[1] The lack of clear ideology engendered by Open Primaries would make such disillusionment worse. Two parties that agree on everything would seriously damage turnout as no clear choice is presented to the electorate. [1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘If our political parties did not exist would we ever need to invent them?’, The Guardian, 25 October 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/25/comment.eu
Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power

Party power is exercised heavily in countries where Open Primaries exist. In the United States, it is common for a political party to openly back a candidate in Primary Elections for Congressional seats. This can give said candidate a major head start, with the massive financial backing and exposure in the public eye that follows resulting in predictable results.[1] Only special circumstances see incumbents defeated (See the rise of the Tea Party and its effect on the US Republican Party), with Primaries being largely predictable affairs. These results in a lack of interest in many Primary contests, making them little more than sideshows that distract from the process of government. [1] ‘“Open” Primaries and the Illusion of Choice’, open salon, 9 June 2010, http://open.salon.com/blog/front_porch_republic/2010/06/09/open_primaries_and_the_illusion_of_choice
Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate

Open Primaries have proven themselves to be a means of engagement in the political process, providing scrutiny of individual candidates before approving the program that they stand for. Open Primaries maintain scrutiny over individual action as opposed to merely scrutinising the actions of the party as a whole, giving voters a chance to provide a nuanced results in elections. Politicians can still focus on their job of representing the people under an Open Primary system, as it is their actions in conducting that particular role that will decide their success in reselection by the electorate they represent.
Open primaries are open to manipulation

This Argument does not stack up. The large numbers of people voting in Primary elections will mean many ‘apoliticals’ will counter the worst partisan tactics (if any) being used in the election. If there has been any impact of opposition party involvement upon the internal politics of a party, it has been to elect more centrist candidates that the greatest number of voters can find palatable. That in itself is no bad thing, as politics can become extremely partisan at times, it does help to have candidates who can be moderate and be more prepared to compromise in order to the best possible outcome for all they represent.
Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties

Only in exceptional circumstances are major splits caused by Primary election. What tends to happen is that Primaries act as a stimulus to healthy debate over what the party stands for, with candidates from all parts of the political spectrum engaging in a contest to define the party in line with the wishes of the electorate. Candidates focus on themselves, while the party leaderships can still play the role of holistically overseeing proceedings to make sure that the focus still remains the general election and what happens after the ballots in the primary election have been counted. It is possible to have rigorous primary campaigns without there being major splits that harm the party’s performance in the general election (The performance of The Democratic Party in 1992 bears this out). While there maybe an emphasis on candidacy and personality, it helps to form a clear of what the party stands for in the general elections, marking out a clear choice between the parties at election time.
Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics

By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections. An Open Primary is more likely to choose more centrist candidates for the general election, providing a degree of moderation to the process of election and politics in general. This in turn can help foster a consensual atmosphere in political discourse with general agreed points, focusing the debate on more core issues between the main parties.[1] This then means that much more is likely to get done. At the moment American politics is plagued by gridlock both in the states and in Congress. Individuals elected under open primaries are much more likely to be willing to compromise across the aisle.[2] As a result government will begin moving again. [1] ‘Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections’, The Stanford Daily, 12 May 2010, http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/05/12/editorial-california-should-switch-to-open-primary-elections/ [2] Michael Alvarez, R., and Sinclair, Betsy, ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes’,  P.2 http://home.uchicago.edu/betsy/papers/Sinclair_BlanketPrimary.pdf
Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power

Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents.[1] By instituting Open Primaries, the focus of representatives shifts from the party leadership to the constituents whom prospective candidates hope to represent. Scrutiny over the representative’s conduct would be in the hands of the voters, with reselection in an Open Primary being contingent upon the member looking after the interests of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party as is the case in many countries that do not have Open Primary systems.[2] By using Open Primaries, elections once again becomes about representing the people as opposed to being a means to power as is the case under the status quo in countries that do not use it.    [1] Stone, Daniel, ‘Prop 14’s Winners and Losers’, Newsweek, 8 June 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/09/prop-14-s-winners-and-losers.html [2] Triggs, Matthew, ‘Open primaries’, Adam Smith Institute, 16 September 2010, http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/open-primaries
Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate

Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate. This may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction.[1] The constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them. [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20090314_4955.php
Open primaries are open to manipulation

Because political persuasion is no bar to voting in a Primary election, it can make the internal elections within parties be open to manipulation from those hostile to the aims of the party and the candidates running for election.        We have seen instances where ‘unelectable’ candidates have been elected by Open Primary as means of discrediting a party and helping their opponents win the general election. A famous instance of this was in the Democratic Primary for the US Senate seat in South Carolina, where the winner, Alvin Greene became the candidate with little advertising or successful fundraising, leading to accusations of a Republican campaign to make re-election of their incumbent, Jim DeMint, much easier.[1] In other instances, it is also possible that the opposition party can use the election as a means of electing a candidate that most reflects their views, neutering the effect of losing the general election. Either way, Open Primaries can be manipulated to create unrealistic outcomes that neither the party nor the electorate truly want, damaging the political process.   [1] ‘Alvin Greene’s implausible S.C. victory: 6 theories’, the week, 10 June 2010, http://theweek.com/article/index/203864/alvin-greenes-implausible-sc-victory-6-theories
Increasing voter engagement

People feel disengaged with politics in general not because they don’t have a say over candidacies, but because of the constant merry-go-round that is electoral politics. The voter fatigue that comes from the constant chase for votes from parties will not decrease. If anything, it will increase as candidates and media coverage is dominated by speculation over who will be a candidate for office rather than who will gain the office actually up for election, causing further disillusionment with the political process.
Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties

Primary elections can be extremely damaging to parties as it engenders cleaves and splits which damage chances of election. Election campaigns between candidates from the same party can become feverish, particularly if the contest is close (See the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008). This can be damaging as parties are made to spend their time focussing their energies on themselves instead of the opposition only to create an image of a divided party that alienates voters who prefer parties who can convey a coherent message about what they can provide for the future. Primaries obscure what a party is about, changing the focus from being about policy and the message of the party to the candidate with personal attributes such as image being of importance. This makes politics much more superficial than it already is.
Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities

The whole point of Democracy is that there are losers as well as winners. It is not up to political parties to accommodate those who disagree with them by accommodating their policies. Parties and the candidates who stand on their behalf must be able to justify their own views and polices to the electorate, without them being diluted by the outside influence of those who may actually fundamentally disagree with what the party believes in. Those on the fringe are better off advocating their policies better instead of voting for candidates of the party they do not support.  Very occasionally an open primary may allow an independent to seriously run, but this will be so rare that it will not compensate for having their independent platforms at elections.
Sponsorship is an inefficient way of giving to charity.

Sponsoring a child is a costly way to do good. More of the money given is taken up with administration (organising) compared to other ways of helping poor people, and although the cost of this administration varies greatly but often as much as 20% of the money donated does not reach the people who need it, and some of that loss is through high executive salaries. [14] For example, keeping track of each child and family needs time from an aid worker, who has to be paid. Organising and sending letters, photographs, school reports, etc. to the donor takes time and money. Translating letters and reports between both donor and child can be particularly costly. Giving the same amount of money to an aid charity would do much more for poor people.
We need to address the causes of poverty rather than treat the symptoms (outward signs).

There are better ways to help people. Helping single children, or even villages, treats the symptoms of poverty - it makes life better for a small minority. It does little to address the actual causes of poverty such as war, unclean water, bad government, HIV/AIDS, unfair world trade rules, etc. As these statistics show the problems of poverty and disease are truly massive in scale, and even if many thousands are helped by sponsorship schemes, many millions more are still left with nothing. If we really want to help lift people out of poverty for good, we should give to charities which focus on these bigger development issues - for example Christian Aid believes that “it is better to help whole communities through our partner organisations rather than sponsor individuals" [16]. We should also join campaigns to make rich world governments do more to help the developing world by increasing spending on aid [17], forgiving debt, and making the global trade rules fairer for developing countries.
Sponsorship is often more about the intentions of the donors rather than the needs of poor children.

Some schemes have a clear cultural and religious motive – a desire to give aid in such a way that it will affect and even impose (force) foreign ideas onto a vulnerable (weaker) society. Any organisation that has such a clear overlap between their own ideas of faith [19] and the practical side of helping people is ultimately imposing its ideas onto people without giving them any choice in the matter. Families may even come to think that they have to show belief in order to keep receiving sponsorship. For example, sponsored children may be encouraged to send cards at Christmas, even if they are not Christians. At the end of the day this comes down to a very serious question of choice – many would argue that by offering aid with the intention of turning children into adult Christians [20], organisations like “Compassion” are effectively manipulating charity into part of a conversion campaign.
Sponsorship is better than other kinds of charity because it is a long term commitment.

The long term nature of sponsorship implies that it does not fix the problems that cause poverty. Instead, many argue it can create dependency[3], meaning that the child and family will come to rely on their sponsor. This may discourage them from using their own efforts to escape poverty. For example, even if leaving their village to find work elsewhere could be best for them, they may stay where they are to keep receiving the sponsorship money and other benefits. By linking a single child to a single wealthy (rich) person it also creates a situation in which it is easy for the child to compare their own lives with those of their sponsors. This could make them unhappy or even jealous [4]. In the end it is still possible to help children through charitable giving, but sponsorship schemes create a more complicated relationship that could sometimes go wrong.
Child sponsorship brings about greater understanding between people from different countries and cultures.

Whilst it is important for people to remember the terrible troubles people have surviving in very poor countries, we must also remember that direct sponsorship is perhaps not the best way to help people out of poverty - there are a lot of downsides [7]. Would it not be better to hear of how an entire community was improved rather than just a single child or family? Ultimately you can’t force people to give to charity, and at times like these when even in wealthy countries people have trouble getting enough money it must be expected that charitable giving will drop.
Sponsorship also contributes to all aspects of life.

The problem once with this form of giving is that it only provides for a single child, not an entire community - this is why many organisations refuse to offer single child adoption, and instead spend the money they receive on developing poor places for everyone that lives there [10]. By sponsoring a child rather than giving the money directly to a cause or organisation you add a layer of uncertainty to the process – you can't be sure exactly how your money is being spent, or if it really is being used to help all aspects of life. Some organisations only work through missionaries and churches [11]. Although giving to a single child may produce more tangible and immediate results, the work done by large charity organisations is likely to have more important long term benefits to many more people.