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

Resolved: The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values. Presidential Primaries-A preliminary election in which the registered voters of a political party nominate candidates for office and include caucuses. System-An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. Contrary-opposed, Democratic Values-Are composed of ideals of democracy, which are part of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other important writings. Overview 1: According Stephen J. Wayne professor of government, Georgetown University, the criteria for a democratic election is that there must be political equality, meaning everyone has a right to vote, at the very least the one person, one vote must apply to the elections and Universal Suffrage meaning the right of all citizens to vote. Unless all adult citizens have an opportunity to vote, then the election results must not be said to reflect the views of the entire country. Lastly they must have a meaningful choice, meaning if there were only one candidate for an office or if all the candidates had equal qualifications and voiced essentially the same views, then there would be grounds for claiming that the voters did not have a meaningful choice. Con.1 Front Loading Frontloading is when primaries are pushed back to a earlier date. The problem is when you push primaries back; the candidates can't get their voice out enough to the voters. Take for example Super Tuesday are you seriously going to have enough time to get every single person to know full well what you stand for in one week. Take a analogy, you would not make a kindergartner take a Harvard law test, it is too early and too soon, to have all these primaries so close to each other. Besides it hurts voters too, because they have to get to know a candidate, who is having trouble enough to get to know you. This takes away a meaningful choice as Stephen J. Wayne said and when you have little time to pick a candidate it is not giving you a real chance to actually learn something. As elections are very important especially to those who are voting and taking away that meaningful choice is just not democratic. Con.2 Super Delegates Super Delegates are top party officials such as senators, former presidents, etc. They are bad because they don't have to follow the people. They get to choose whoever they want to vote for, which they can even go against the whim of the people. Also there is a big problem with super delegates being lobbied from the candidates. 40% of Barack Obama's Super Delegates are bought and paid for. This goes against democratic values because the super delegates are corrupt. If it truly were democratic, then they would not have to give 694,000 as Barack Obama has to his delegates. This system is corrupt and should be deemed undemocratic right there, because it goes against political equality because according to Stephen J. Wayne, he states in his own words about political equality, "It also means that all votes count equally, that no individual, group, region, or jurisdiction should gain extra representation or exercise extra influence.", Super Delegates are getting extra attention, because the candidates have realized they can be bought and paid for. Con. 3 Iowa Iowa is a very funky system, they violate the one person, one vote, idea, that very vote should be counted equally because in Iowa they have a very bad system. Their system is composed of districts, the problem with it, is in this system you could have 90% of the population of Iowa voting in one district, but the other opponent wins all the other districts, so he wins. So to make it simple the system they have is based on past participation, but it is done by districts, so that means it is a 90-10 vote for Obama, but Hillary won, because she won more districts. Now they will win the popular vote, but they will not win more delegates, which is what really matters. This goes against political equality in that you could win 90% of the vote and the 10% vote is worth more, is that democratic. Con.4 Caucuses Caucuses are like mini primaries, they are part of the system, because the delegates that come out of them go to the same place, the national convention. The problem is very simple, Caucuses don't have absentee ballots. The problem with this is that, many individuals want to vote in the caucus, but because, there is no absentee ballot, it excludes voters in the military, voters, who work during caucuses, voters who are at home with sick children or family members, and voters who have difficulty leaving their homes. All of these individuals want to vote, but because they don't have absentee ballots, it prevents Universal Suffrage as Stephen J. Wayne said and it is undemocratic. It is a simple problem, with a simple solution, but it still has not been changed. Also Caucuses eliminate the secret ballot, meaning according to Tova Andrea Wang. [Democracy Fellow at the Century Foundation]. "Has America Outgrown The Caucus? Some Thoughts on Reshaping the Nomination Contest." The Century Foundation. Issue Brief. October 22, 2007. p. 5. "Voters at Democratic caucuses, and sometimes at Republican ones, have to state their preferences in public, in front of their neighbors. There are good reasons, however, that there is a secret ballot in the United States: it allows voters to resist pressure to vote for a particular candidate, and it allows citizens a zone of privacy about their political views.", The problem is it prevent you from making a meaningful choice, because you are just going with the crowd and thus is undemocratic. Lastly, in certain states such as Nevada, they have caucuses on the Sabbath 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. All in all caucuses are confusing contests, that have a impact on the race, but tarnish voter rights. Everyone who votes should not have difficulties when it comes to voting, they should have an easy way of voting, Caucuses are not easy, even for the ones who are not disabled. Con.5 Military According to "Voting Can Be A Real Battle For U.S. Troops And Others Overseas In The 2008 Primaries." The Century Foundation. November 29, 2007. http://www.tcf.org.... "U.S. Troops in Iraq and other places around the world are center stage in this year's presidential elections. But when it comes to casting votes for the candidates, American soldiers and other U.S. citizens living abroad often face daunting obstacles. A new report from The Century Foundation sheds light on this problem, which has received surprisingly little public attention. It also warns that with a frontloaded primary system and a large number of caucuses, U.S. military personnel and other citizens living abroad could find it more difficult than ever to have their votes count." The problem with this is from this very same article only 1/3 of all of the votes overseas were counted in primaries. As Stephen J. Wayne said" The exclusion of any group of citizens because of any characteristic other than those directly related to their capacity to exercise an informed and intelligent vote (such as being literate and having the mental capacity to make an intelligent voting decision) naturally weakens the representative nature of the system. The more people excluded for whatever reason, the less the government can be said to reflect the consent of the governed." So it obviously weakens a representative government and thus makes it undemocratic. Also, many overseas voters did not make the deadline, because their ballots did not get to them in time. This is to start, can you beat it, hahahaha, jk