" both parties", "the two parties", "the republicans and democrats", "in our democracy". . . . The simple fact that most of the "No" voters seem to believe there are only two political parties and we live in a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC is why primaries should go away. The "tax" dollars saved from eliminating primary elections would easily cover the cost of placing every eligible candidate on the ballot in every state for November elections. Also state seat election and federal seat election should be on different ballots. Vice President should be a seperate election process and if not then done away with. Usually the Speaker of the House or President Pro Tempore are both more qualified to be President anyway. As far as tie votes in the senate, The VP is going to vote party line anyway unless the VP is of a different party. If you have a 49 to 50 vote call it a tie and let the Speaker be the tie breaker.
Primaries enable extreme emotional voices to choose a candidate based on popularity rather than quality. The reality show unfolding here in 2016 is clear evidence. Leaving voting to politically engaged representatives in caucuses rather than public, open primaries, helps ensure qualified nominees go on to the conventions instead of the most sensational.
People do simply do not take primaries seriously. Voter turnout in statewide primaries so far this year has been historically low, even among states with procedures designing to make voting more convenient.
Overall, voter turnout among the 25 states that have held primaries is down 18 percent from the 2010 election, according a study by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate. There were almost 123 million age-eligible voters in these primary states, but only about 18 million of them voted.
The ancient romans had a government similar to ours. When their people stopped participating whole heartedly they elected bad leaders and the Roman empire fell. Without the full participation of voters our government will rot from within.
If we were to abolish the primary system for choosing party nominees, it is not hard to see what would happen. The elites of both parties would shun the views of the voters in favor of the candidate who's "turn" it is. Worse, we have seen many times in recent years that the Establishment of both parties tends to hold ordinary Americans in contempt, often lecturing us on "how it is done" and why we should put their favored candidates in to office. This system is also open to massive risks of corruption, placing the nominating process in the hands of the party elites instead of the people means they can easily make sure that whoever is nominated will protect their power and interests, rather than anything that will make the country better. We saw this two years ago in the 2016 cycle. The Establishment of both parties selected candidates from two old political dynasties, completely tone-deaf to the fact the Americans wanted new faces. Voters no longer care about who the "most electable" candidate is. In fact, making electability the center of your campaign just tells people that all you care about is winning, you don't really stand for anything. The primary system doesn't always churn out the best people either, but at least they are not chosen by shady characters in a smoke-filled room. By giving the nomination process to the people, it helps to keep the parties fresh. If the public gets tired of the "old guard" in one party they can make their feelings known by rejecting their candidates, instead forcing in new blood, and even new ideas.
I do not believe primary elections should be abolished. I believe this system helps parties in the long run. Personally, within the United States, I think we just need more parties. Not one more party, but several more parties. I think we've been given bad choices for far too long.
No, primary elections are a helpful process by winnowing the field of candidates before the general election. However, the primaries should be open, meaning that the top candidates advance to the general election even if they are members of the same party. This gives the general election more significance, particularly in states that are either heavily conservative or liberal.
In the democracy that we have, it is much more beneficial for Democrats and Republicans to each post one nominee for President instead of multiple. In the scenario where Democrats put up 3 candidates, and Republicans put up 1, The 3 Democrats will all pull votes from the others because of slightly different beliefs. Say that these 3 each get 20% of the vote while the Republican pulls in 40%. It seems that most people want the Republican as President, but actually, 60% of the entire population does NOT want him or her. The overwhelming majority voted Democrat, but votes were dispersed between too many candidates. This is why the primaries are so important. They decide the candidate that will BEST pull in more overall votes, it is not about finding the perfect candidate.
Primary elections shouldn't be abolished because a majority of voters must approve of a candidate before that person takes office. Primary elections weed the chaff. A general election should be between two candidates with a majority winner coming out on top. The only way a primary election could end an election is if one candidate gets more than 50 percent of one election and is unopposed from another party.
No, I do not think that primary elections should be abolished. Having primary elections are a fundamental part of our democracy, and allows every citizen who can vote and who registers to vote a voice when it comes to electing officials who are best qualifed to serve our great nation.