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

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-Are composed of ideals of democracy, which are part of the U.S. Constitution. Overview 1: 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 caucus or 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 Front Loading Sub Point A Definition The definition of front loading is to concentrate costs or benefits in an early period. Front loading has incrementally evolved since the primary system began in earnest in 1968.Each election cycle, more contests have been held earlier as states have tried to outmaneuver each other for attention and influence. In 2000, by March 14, two-thirds of the delegates had been allocated. In 2004, by the second Tuesday in March, 71.4 percent of the delegates were Committed to a candidate.1 to put it another way, in 1980, only one state had a primary or caucus by The end of February; in 2000, nine states did; and in 2004, nineteen states held contests by that time. In addition to the problems presented by bunching many primaries into a small time frame—making it difficult for candidates with relatively less financial support to communicate their messages in a multitude of locations—reaching an early verdict also has downsides. Concluding the nomination process in the winter, for all intents and purposes, leaves the parties, nominees-in waiting, and voters with a vacuum for the many months until the conventions in the late summer. That gap tends to induce the anointed candidates to focus on raising private money while the public's attention subsides, reducing the amount of time that might be more productively devoted to debating the major issues confronting the nation. This messes with equality, because it does not give the little guy a shot and justice to provide adequate ground for. Sub Point B informing voters One of the major concerns about the rapid frontloading of the primary schedule is that it will make it more difficult for voters to be exposed to adequate information to make knowledgeable decisions. Commentators have said that requiring candidates to campaign in big states scattered across the country will force them to rely more than ever on "wholesale" campaigning—communicating to the voters primarily through paid ads and whatever scant free media they can manage to draw to themselves. That concern is legitimate, though in the early stages the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (as well as Nevada for the Democrats) will still have plenty of opportunity to learn more than the sound bites in advertisements. Moreover, as we have seen from the attention paid to the Web-cast announcements of the candidates entering the race, the Internet is likely to play a much greater role in enabling voters to learn more about candidates—in many ways a great deal. Contention 2-Candidate Choice Most commentators are arguing that having so many primaries at once and so early—a large portion of which will be in big, delegate rich states—deprives voters of having a real choice among candidates. That is because only candidates with large amounts of money to pay for costly advertising in so many different locations will be able to compete. The early onslaught of contests in far flung states, many in expensive media markets, will mean only the best-funded candidates will have a fighting chance at the outset, perhaps driving a larger proportion of candidates out of the election earlier than ever. This messes with the value of diversity in the race, because of course if it down to one, is that diverse. Sub Point A- John Kerry/ George Bush John Kerry, for example, essentially secured his party's nomination in 2004 with his win in the South Carolina primary. The University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies noted, "In Election 2000, Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore had all but locked up the Republican and Democratic nominations for president by March 7,2000; voters in 33 states had not yet cast their primary ballots. These messes with popular sovereignty or the power of the government comes from the people. Contention 3-Misrepresentation The disproportionate influence of the kick-off states of Iowa and New Hampshire, both of which lack large cities and sizeable minority communities, has long raised concerns that the priorities of white voters from rural communities and small towns would become the central focus of the candidates and skew outcomes. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2004 American Community Survey, 2.2 percent of Iowa's population and 0.8 percent of New Hampshire's population are African American, compared to 12.2 percent for the nation as a whole.14 The 2004 Census data indicate that the Hispanic/Latino population of Iowa was 3.7 percent and that of New Hampshire was 2.1 percent, compared to 14.2 percent for the nation as a whole., this goes with the democratic value of truth, which is to tell things like they are. Contention 4-Superdelegates Sub Point-What they are "The super delegates, who make up 20 percent of the 4,049 delegates, exist to prevent the party from nominating an unelectable outsider — not to stop it from choosing between two mainstream candidates. Obama is ahead by 25 or so in pledged delegates, those chosen by the voters. But Clinton has a lead of slightly more than 100 in super delegates, giving her the overall advantage. All 398 members of the Democratic National Committee are super delegates. So, too, is every Democrat in the House and Senate, as well as every Democratic governor. There's also a category of distinguished party leaders, including former presidents and vice presidents, and 76 add-on delegates (three in Pennsylvania, two in New Jersey, one in Delaware) who haven't been named yet.", The entire idea of representatives, rather than the people choosing a candidate souly because they feel they can win is just not democratic at all. Sub Point B Joshua Lev According to Joshua Lev from CNN.com, Super delegates may determine who will be elected. Super Delegates are high profile members of the party, why is it not democratic. Well they don't have to listen to the people, just the members of their other super delegates. Howard Dean said "If we can't find a candidate by April we will have to get the candidates together to make a deal". How is that democratic, you are voting for nothing, one example is the Nevada Caucus. Hillary Clinton got 51% of the vote, but Obama had 1 more delegate than Hillary, is that fair or equal. Also these Super delegates can choose a candidate before the primary even happens. In fact Clinton now has 71 delegates in primaries, that have not even voted yet, how is popular sovereignty happening, how is that fair. As Obama said, "If we go into the convention with more delegates, we can say are constituency has spoken"