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

Despite my opponents attempts to break the NAFF Rules of Conduct (In stating that he won a round without letting the voters decide); I intend to progress by discussing arguments. My opponent said that there are Super Delegates who are biased. What my opponent doesn't recognize is that there are also groups of voters that are biased. I'm sure that the average person carries a biased towards one candidate or they wouldn't vote for him or her in the first place. That is the political process, I'm afraid, biases of people being counted to see which one wins. Should a candidate not be allowed to vote themselves because they have a biased towards themselves, then? We have even seen through the years that some states carry biases (Example: Arizona voting Republican and Illinois voting Democrat). What my opponent must understand is that primaries are separate from the constitution, therefore they can't be "unconstitutional" or "undemocratic" because they are not a part of the process. It is a process to help the parties choose a candidate for their run in the general election. You can't assign that to something that parties do to help themselves. I'll re-quote myself as my opponent might not have recognized my point before, "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." I'm not sure how you can argue something not democratic if it is not a democratic process but a helpful tool for the two political parties and more like a tradition started in the late 20th century. The original process of the parties just nominating their candidates themselves collapsed in 1824, and since 1832 we hold the national conventions. Primaries are just a place for people (and the party) to deliberate on whom they wish to run. It is not needed (Technically, but it helps a great deal. Things would be a big show of candidates if we didn't have them or we wouldn't even get a choice at all and have the parties nominate candidates themselves.) nor was it put into the Constitution. Closed Primaries are not going against Universal Suffrage. You are allowed to vote, just like in the general election, for ONE candidate. Because of checks and balances in the system, you can not vote for both parties because it is highly unlikely that you enjoy both parties (and the high risk of sabotage as I mentioned in my last post). The reasons Independents (I am one myself) can't vote in a Closed Primary is because it is the Democrats choosing their runner and the Republicans choosing their runner. Those parties wish to issue the privilege of letting their loyalties vote for their opinion of who has the best chance in the General Election. The Independents (along with all other parties) would be able to vote in the closed primaries if their party had many candidates that it was wanting to sort through and decided to have its loyalties used as a test run to see who would do best. Now, I must stress, not all primaries are closed primaries (but I am not against closed primaries, as stated above). As for Elitism, again, I quote myself for my opponent with an addition at the end of the quote, "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." (addition) If considers this Elitism, they can always vote for the party who chooses for themselves who gets to run (more of an Elitism than having the people have somewhat of a say in a PARTY'S PROCESS OF CHOOSING A CANDIDATE FOR *THEIR* TICKET.) I have stated a number of times that you can not consider a process like this Elitism. The Republican or Democratic parties both wish to choose a runner...they turn to the people and yet consider their votes of more importance... Big deal, I say. It's their decision in the long run. It's their ticket. The citizens are the one's who get completely equal votes in the General Election (which IS part of the original plan). My opponent said, quote, "But all primaries are is a coverup for the behind the scenes work by the party to pick whoever they want, and that is the major reason it is undemocratic, because they have the power to do so." Is this by any chance a conspiracy theory? I'm not sure if my opponent is using facts here. For an example of my reasoning here: Some people believe in ghosts. Some people don't. Either could be right, but we don't have the facts on that. Therefore, my opponent can not make that assumption. So that my opponent knows, anyone can run for president. They do not have to run under the Dem or Rep ticket (and so they don't have to be a part of the Rep and Dem circle). But yes, the Dems and Reps have more money, and their candidates always win (mostly because of popularity mixed in with the funding). That is why so many candidates want to run under their tickets, and that is why they need something like the primaries. I apologize to my opponent for our short debate due to my computer difficulties, but I know our voters will be able to assume their own educated opinions from what has been presented. Regards, Vi