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

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-Are composed of ideals of democracy, which are part of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other important writings. Observation 1-We must limit this debate to the democratic values of the United States. 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 and Elitism 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 C-Elitism 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. Also, it infringes on the rights of others, with this simple act. When people have to make a decision quickly, without choosing the best person for the job, it leads to bad legislation from the person, who is getting elected. Thus it will cause elitism, which is where society is ruled by elites and the role of citizens is merely to ensure smooth and peaceful circulation of elites. Meaning only the elite members of society will be able to be leader, thus makes a deliberate democracy, where the elites vote on everything, without caring about the whole population, thus it is ruled by a minority, not a majority. The whole idea is against liberty and equality, because no one would ever be equal and the elites can stop the liberties of others, while pushing their agenda. Contention 2-Closed primaries "Once a direct primary system is instituted, the key question is often that of access to the primary ballot. Should there be an "open primary" system, in which any voter can vote for candidates from either party? Or should there be a "closed primary," in which participation is limited to persons who have registered their political affiliation with the party at an earlier date? Advocates of the open primary argue that a citizen should not be forced to disclose his or her party affiliation, and that the citizen should be given an opportunity to vote in the primary contest he or she considers most meaningful. It is also wrong, they argue, to exclude independents from the nominating process by a closed system. This messes with liberty in that an idea that each ought to be master of his or her life to the domain of collective decision making. First, each person's life is deeply affected by the larger social, legal and cultural environment in which he or she lives. Second, only when each person has an equal voice and vote in the process of collective decision-making will each have control over this larger environment. ", Liberty is infringed upon, thus it is against democratic values of liberty. Only twenty states out of 30 have a open primary system, meaning more than half of all of the states of our nation have liberty. Contention 3-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 in pledged delegates, those chosen by the voters. But Clinton had 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. It attacks equality to the gut, in that a candidate could come in with more votes and not get the nomination. This is my case, whoever takes this debate, please, don't debate me on definitons or democratic values, the last debate, did not help me at all, so please debate my ideas. I will debate you and I want to share ideas too.