I don't understand. If you're going to change it, why don't do the primary on the same day like any other country?
back
1 comments
> If you’re going to change it, why don’t do the primary on the same day like any other country?
It is not true that “every other country” has parties select their presidential (or nearest equivalent, whether as head of state or head of government, other countries frequently divorcing those roles) candidate by simultaneous national elections. Sometimes, they don’t even (in a legal sense) choose a candidate at all, though the party may have its own process of deciding and announcing who its members responsible for the leadership election (e.g., MPs in Westminster-style system) will vote for should they secure the necessary majority to decide the outcome on their own.
In fact, I couldn’t off the top of my head name even a single country that uses a national simultaneous primary to select party nominees for election head of government or head of state, can you?
In Argentina, by law, the candidates for all national elections for all parties are selected by las PASO (mandatory simultaneous open primaries), which are national simultaneous elections. I don't know if there are many other such countries, but there's one.
You're on to something there. Keep digging. Perhaps you'll come to the truth of the matter that the USA's political system is undemocratic to no end.
How is the US worse than other countries where the majority-party apparatus selects the country's leader with no involvement of the electorate? Just look at the prime ministers the UK has cycled through
to date with no elections.
Selecting a head of government through the electoral college is less democratic than one elected person from every riding deciding who is the leader collectively.