Why do we even need primaries?
 

Can somebody explain why we even need political primaries?

Yes I know it is because there can only be one candidate from each party running in an election. But why is that the case?

Remember the California recall election where there were hundreds of candidates running? Did that not more closely represent a true democratic election than the current primary system? Why do we need only one republican/democrat running in an election?

Would not the next presidential election be more fun if it was a four way match-up between Clinton/Obama/Giuliani/McCain/Nader?

All they have to do is run independent, green, libertarian, constitutional, etc. There are plenty of parties out there.

I agree with jbw - yes, there are plenty of parties but why do we have to have one from each?

As a voter if I ever consider voting for a candidate because of a "better chance of winning," I would say our vaunted democratic process is failing. Voting for someone should indicate similar thoughts and views rather than an attempt to put the lesser of two evils in office.

when have those second ring parties ever achieved a significant number of votes? They don't get votes because people know that they do not have a chance and it is a waste of a vote. Doesn't it seem that many people vote not for a candidate but against the other?

WE don't need primaries, the PARTIES need primaries. It ensures that their partisan supporters (those that vote for a particular party regardless of candidates or circumstances) don't get confused and split their votes.

If the republican and democratic votes were split among numerous (7 or 8) candidates, other parties would have a shot at capturing the presidency.

Then again, we'd be a fractious society if we were elected presidents who won with an 8% plurality of the popular vote.

Hey, I dunno about you but I'd take a guy who won 8% over the guy with 4%! More to the point, we are a "fractious society" already only it's one half versus another half. I'd much rather have a number of different candidates who have a real chance. We might - just might - make people think rather than voting down party lines.

They're not second ring parties, they're parties that are less active in media because they have both use their collective power to make people think there are only two choices. Perot won almost 20% of the vote in 1992, which is almost as high as the current president's approval rating. I'd call that significant. The fact of the matter is that Obama could switch his candidacy to Green right now (he is almost progressive enough to be considered green), and I'll bet he could take 15-25% of the votes come election day. He won't because people have erroneously decided that a third party vote is a 'waste'. I'm wondering how voting for someone who best represents your views is a waste...sounds like people are playing right into the broken two-party system.
Well put.

We desperately need some sort of runoff voting. I like instant runoff voting myself.

I dont like the primary system, which is relatively new (the early 70s as a result of the McGovern Commission) but I am a strong supporter of the two-party system and dont see the need for change in that regard.

I would like to see us go back to the process that was used prior to the 70s, where the nominees were selected at the national conventions...but in an even more open and inclusive way by expanding the conventions to online participation in some manner.

I'd settle for voting mu.

I think we need to have rank voting. Where you can vote for up to three candidates or just one.

I agree that the president shouldn't have a political party, just like the supreme court justices. He or she should run on their own platform.

Rational choice.

I think it was Rocky Anderson that believed in the lottery system for President... haha ;)

Neither of the major parties benefits from doing any of the above, so don't reasonably expect it to happen. They will not vote themselves out of power, simply vote themselves pay increases.

The problem I have with throwing up our hands like that, seretogis, is if that were true we'd have only had the same two political parties for the entirety of the history of the nation. And that's not the case. So things obviously change somehow...

The rise of a third party may cause it to happen, but, as I said, don't expect Republicans or Democrats to vote themselves out of power.

Edit: Except Ron Paul that is. :love: :love:

Political parties should be free to decide how they select the candidates they choose to run for political office. However, local and state laws often make it virtually impossible for viable third parties. (Republicans and Democrats seem to work well together on this issue.) The current primary season makes it impossible for any candidate without major amounts of money or major party support to gain the traction needed to run a national campaign for President. Republican and Democratic party officials and insiders have the system just the way they like it.

I don't understand why you guys are all advocating changes to the voting system as if we were in a system of direct vote election.

you can vote for whomever you want...you can even write in a candidate, but the electoral college's vote is what "counts".