The Instigator
bigbass3000
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Miserlou
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

" That Presidential Primaries are contrary to democratic values"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,242 times Debate No: 2396
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (11)

 

bigbass3000

Con

I am looking for some ideas for this topic, it is a kind os learning topic to get ideas for both sides in PFD
Miserlou

Pro

Alright, I am pro so I assume that means I agree with above topic. I've never really thought about this issue before but I think I can argue it. You didn't define democratic values, but I'll again assume that it's the traditional ideas of government by the people, equality, and so forth.

Presidential primaries are undemocratic because they force people into a very narrow scope of candidates. Let's say the primary winners are two people who I don't like at all; now I am forced to vote for someone who I don't support, or not vote at all. I'm not picking my government; and if a candidate wins by a small percentage, that means a lot of people aren't getting their government. Of course not everyone can be happy; eventually only one person will win. But primaries force people to pick early. The popularity of a candidate swings, and it's unfair to kick someone out early just because there's someone ahead of them months before the actual election. In this election especially, I could still see either Clinton or Obama, either McCain or Romney, winning in November. Why can't I vote for the candidate I like?

Party rules within primaries are also undemocratic. In my state (New York), and many others, people can only vote if they are registered either Democrat or Republican. This means that independents like me can't vote in the primaries, so we can't actually have a say. This constricts people to picking out of two political parties, even in other states since voters must vote within their parties.

Essentially, primaries force voters to pick from pre-packaged political deals, and aren't given their actual say.
Debate Round No. 1
bigbass3000

Con

"Presidential primaries are undemocratic because they force people into a very narrow scope of candidates. Let's say the primary winners are two people who I don't like at all; now I am forced to vote for someone who I don't support, or not vote at all. I'm not picking my government; and if a candidate wins by a small percentage, that means a lot of people aren't getting their government. Of course not everyone can be happy; eventually only one person will win. But primaries force people to pick early. The popularity of a candidate swings, and it's unfair to kick someone out early just because there's someone ahead of them months before the actual election. In this election especially, I could still see either Clinton or Obama, either McCain or Romney, winning in November. Why can't I vote for the candidate I like", you are not forced, because you voted, it does not force you to vote.

"Party rules within primaries are also undemocratic. In my state (New York), and many others, people can only vote if they are registered either Democrat or Republican. This means that independents like me can't vote in the primaries, so we can't actually have a say. This constricts people to picking out of two political parties, even in other states since voters must vote within their parties.", The reason they have that is because Republicans are choosing a Republican and a democrat is picking a democrat. If it was just open then, it would be democrats voting for a republican, they would be voting to mess with a election, this arguement carries no weight.

"Essentially, primaries force voters to pick from pre-packaged political deals, and aren't given their actual say."

Resolved: The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values.
U.S.-United States of America
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-Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy:
Values: System of core beliefs.
Observations 1-The primaries we will be debating are the ones of today in the 21st century or the present.
Overview: What is a presidential primary is a question to a presidential primary? 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 Primaries work for everyone
To spend four months criss-crossing the country meeting voters is a good test of a candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and it gives Americans lots of opportunities to decide which politician they like best. Also, a little-known candidate who does well in the early caucuses or primaries has a chance to attract financial support, and organize a strong campaign. Since the first primaries are smaller states, the way the process works is simple, go from small to big states. This gives every candidate a chance to show its side and gain momentum and voters getting to know them. Presidential primaries are the best for a representative democracy.
Con. 2 before primaries
Before primaries, presidential nominees, were picked by the convention, by themselves, meaning the people really, did not have a say on how will be the nominee. This is not a great democratic value, primaries give the candidates a chance to battle it out for the seat, rather than just be nominated. This is the best way for everyone's voice to be heard, for the people. Primaries work because it gives the people a voice to be heard in the system. By the people having a voice, it really is giving a voice to who will be picked, thus it is an important part of democratic values.
Con.3 Front Loading is good
For all the fretting we heard this past year over the dangers of front-loading the process -- that it would give a leg up to the wealthier, well-known candidates, preventing the slow ascent of sleeper candidates -- well, so far that's just dead wrong. Mitt Romney's millions didn't win him the gold in either of the first few contests -- instead we saw a relative unknown with little funding win Iowa, and a veteran candidate whose political tombstone was all but written this past summer, take New Hampshire. Maybe we weren't giving enough credit to the voters -- who so far have rejected the perceived momentum of the winning candidate coming out of Iowa and now New Hampshire. Now it's looking like this race may go beyond Super Duper Tuesday, and we're even hearing whispers of the forgotten words, "brokered convention" -- something this country hasn't seen since the 1952! This means that at the end, there may not be a winner, which is good, because it proves even though front loading has critics, it is causing a close race on both sides, and doesn't allow the media to proclaim a front runner and thus is good for every candidate.

http://www.cnn.com...
Miserlou

Pro

"you are not forced, because you voted, it does not force you to vote."

Let me clarify; I may be forced to either pick from two candidates I don't like or not vote at all. Let's say there's two Republican candidates A and B. If B is even a little less popular than A in the winter and spring, he'll be out of the race. But perhaps if he was allowed to keep running, along with A, he might still win in November. And if I support B but he looses the primary, I am forced to choose between A, who I don't like, and a different candidate who I don't like. Democracy is supposed to be an expression of the people, but I'm not expressing myself if I don't feel any of my voting options will be right. Primaries narrow the playing field too much and unnecessarily.

"If it was just open then, it would be democrats voting for a republican, they would be voting to mess with a election, this argument carries no weight."

Yes, it does. I know that Democrats and Republicans vote within their parties for that reason, but why can't independents and people of third parties vote in primaries? Third party candidates rarely have a viable chance for the presidency, or even congress positions, but the people of these parties still have opinions. Say a particular Democratic candidate makes the environment their pet issue, people in the Green Party want them to be elected, and so they should be allowed to vote.

"or they may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention."

This is a good argument for Pro. Having people vote and then ignoring those isn't very democratic. Again, why do we have to limit ourselves to only two candidates, when there are multitudes of different opinions that doubtfully can fit all into two.

"Con. 1 Primaries work for everyone"

Candidates will be touring the country anyway, and opinion polls and other methods are taken regularly for the purposes you mentioned; financial support, campaign strength ect. None of the benefits you described come about only because of primaries.

"Con. 2 before primaries"

Alright, they had a bad system before primaries, but if we got rid of them it would not mean we'd have go back to the way it was. And I have already explained how primaries don't truly represent everyone' s voices.

"Con.3 Front Loading is good"

Front loading may not be that bad, but that doesn't mean it's positive, and it still doesn't change the rest of the facts about primaries. This coming election is really a toss up, but as I said before primaries are designed to pick two out of everyone. But with the political tide shifting so much, who we pick now might not be who we would want to pick in November. Back to A and B; we pick A over B now, but if both were allowed to continue running we just might pick B in November instead.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
It is the best system for a representative democracy
Posted by AntiPatriot 9 years ago
AntiPatriot
I heard Noam Chomsky say it best in one of his book talks.

The process in a REAL democracy look like this:

The people of a certain state/district/circuit would assemble and agree on a set of principles/policies that they think a good president should abide by. If someone is willing to agree to the terms set up by the people, then the people will, in turn, agree to vote for the candidate. So the people choose the candidate that endorses their policies.

What happens in America looks like this:

A small group of candidates with predetermined policies and principles are running for office. The people now don't get to choose the candidate that would endorse their policies, but they are forced to endorse a candidate with his/her own policies.

The difference may seem small, but it is the key difference between real democracy and the image of democracy.
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
Public Forum Debate?

llllllllneed25characterslllllllllllllll
Posted by trayhayes 9 years ago
trayhayes
When you say "democratic values," are you referring to democratic as the Democratic Party values or democratic as values of a democratic country?
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I affirm IF you're talking about this year's primaries, cause I don't know too much about the previous ones. Regardless; I don't know what a PFD is.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
PFD? What exactly is that?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by aodanu16 9 years ago
aodanu16
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by twinkiesunite 9 years ago
twinkiesunite
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rnsweetswimn1 9 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dkerwi8993 9 years ago
dkerwi8993
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DaPofoKing 9 years ago
DaPofoKing
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tina706 9 years ago
tina706
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rnsweetheart 9 years ago
rnsweetheart
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by CP 9 years ago
CP
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
bigbass3000MiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03