- In my (expert) opinion, the USA had better chief executives when nominees for the office of president were selected in “smoke-filled rooms.” The newer system may be more “democratic”, but I would prefer something less “democratic” and more effective.
- The later the date at which a State’s political-party members caucus, the more likely it is that the party’s eventual nominee will already have been determined effectively or even officially. This fact can make voting seem even more truly pointless in latecomer States than it does on Election Day (and, thanks to “Super Tuesday”, this onset of irrelevancy can occur very early in the campaign season); further, since voters in these many States may prefer candidates different from those preferred by voters who live elsewhere, but since their different choices may be rendered moot as candidates who gained insufficient support in the earlier primaries—on might call them “primary primaries”—withdraw from the race, the winner of the nomination may not even be the actual favorite of his party’s majority. It would make more sense for all 50 States and the District of Columbia to hold their primaries on the same day.
01 March 2016
When I wrote UC #4, I mentioned only one of my reasons for disliking the practice of using State primaries to decide a political party’s nominations for the US presidency; that error is now rectified, for I here present two others.
(If I come up with any more reasons, I’ll let you know what they are.)