The US System of Presidential Primaries is contrary to democratic values

First I will post my case, then I will rebut your case, if I have time Resolved: The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values. Presidential Primaries-Of or relating to a president or presidency, A preliminary election in which the registered voters of a political party nominate candidates for office. Contrary-Opposed, as in character or purpose Democratic Values-The fundamental beliefs and constitutional principles outlined In the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and other important writings such as U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Overview: What is a presidential primary is a question to be answered. Both major political parties (Democratic and Republican) officially nominate their candidate for President at their respective national conventions, usually held during the summer before the election. Depending on state law and state party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate in a presidential primary, they may actually be voting to award delegates "bound" to vote for a candidate at the state or national convention, or they may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention. In addition to delegates chosen during primaries and caucuses, state delegations to both the (Democratic and Republican) conventions also include "unpledged" delegates. For Republicans, these include top party officials. Democrats have a more expansive group of unpledged delegates called "super delegates", who are party leaders and elected officials. Con.1 first amendment On January 16, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled a political party has a first amendment right to have a election process that in their view will produce the best nominee for their party. Also they ruled it in favor of federalism as well, which is where a government, particularly are own, is run by a central government, with mini state governments. That is why so many primaries are so different in many ways. The system is not contrary because not every primary that is run is the same; they are all different, with different rules, which make them not contrary. What this means is that a political party has a right to have any primary system it wants. Primaries are not contrary to democratic values because are democratic values are exactly what the Supreme Court does for are nation. So Primaries are not contrary because a political party can have Super Delegates and that would be upholding democratic values. Super Delegates are Democratic Super delegates are democratic, because the people voted them in, and they make decisions. Also Super Delegates work for the people's interests, why because they are smarter than us, and were voted to look out for us. Take Jimmy Carter for instance, he has started Habitat for humanity and he is super Delegates. Also as far as someone coming up here and saying they will go against the people is not true. Why, because if they did, it would destroy the party. They have never gone against the people, because they realize, they are the ones who have the power. If they go against that power, they will lose their support and then where would the Democratic Party be. Even when they did decide the winner, they did not go against the people. Super delegates are democratic for one, according to the Supreme Court they are, two they are elected and three, they look for what is best for the people. Also Superdelegates are elected officials who work for the people, if they defy the people; they are going to out of a job. So it will never happen, they will never undermine the vote, unless they are crazy. Federalism Federalism is the idea that is in our constitution, that states should have the right to have different ways of running the country. The primaries are a big example of that, the reason, why there are so many different primaries, like the Cajun Primary in New Orleans and the Texas two steps is because States have powers. Federalism is a huge democratic value, because it is even in the name of our government a federal Republic. So Primaries promote states rights. Con. 4 Equal opportunity for everyone To spend four months criss-crossing the country meeting voters is a good test of a candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and it gives Americans lots of opportunities to decide which politician they like best. Also, a little-known candidate who does well in the early caucuses or primaries has a chance to attract financial support, and organize a strong campaign. Since the first primaries are smaller states, the way the process works is simple, go from small to big states. This gives every candidate a chance to show its side and gain momentum and voters getting to know them. Presidential primaries are the best for a representative democracy. Con. 5 before primaries Before primaries, presidential nominees, were picked by the convention, by themselves, meaning the people really, did not have a say on how will be the nominee. Primaries give the candidates a chance to battle it out for the seat, rather than just be nominated. This is the best way for everyone's voice to be heard, for the people. Primaries work because it gives the people a voice to be heard in the system. By the people having a voice, it really is giving a voice to who will be picked, thus it is an important part of democratic values. Con.6 Front Loading is good For all the fretting we heard this past year over the dangers of front-loading the process -- that it would give a leg up to the wealthier, well-known candidates, preventing the slow ascent of sleeper candidates -- well, so far that's just dead wrong. Mitt Romney's millions didn't win him the gold in either of the first few contests -- instead we saw a relative unknown with little funding win Iowa, and a veteran candidate whose political tombstone was all but written this past summer, take New Hampshire. Maybe we weren't giving enough credit to the voters -- who so far have rejected the perceived momentum of the winning candidate coming out of Iowa and now New Hampshire. Now it's looking like this race may go beyond Super Duper Tuesday, and we're even hearing whispers of the forgotten words, "brokered convention" -- something this country hasn't seen since the 1952! This means that at the end, there may not be a winner, which is good, because it proves even though front loading has critics, it is causing a close race on both sides, and doesn't allow the media to proclaim a front runner and thus is good for every candidate. Okay now, to rebut my opponents points, he first brings up that Iowa is proportional to all the states, that true, but that is why they are states, the only way, he could win this point is if he were advocating a national primary day, but that would not be equal and besides Barack Obama did win Iowa, an all white state right, so it really doesn't matter. The reason why Michigans votes were pulled was because they warned them not to push their primary and they did, but besides, they are coming to a deal to redo those states with Obama on the ballot in Michigan and campaign, according to the New York Times on 03/07/08. His second point is about minorities, but a democracy is a majority rule, not minority and cross apply this with my first contention on the supreme court ruling. His third point is about closed primaries, but when you sign a party affiliation ballot, any ballot to vote, it warns you that by signing, you will not5 be able to vote in primaries, so the people who are voting signed it knowing full well, what they can and cannot do. You also make that decision by yourself and you still have liberty, because you can still not vote. Advocating the Aff would be advocating injustice. Here is the website http://www.state.nj.us...