Contradictory Critique of the Day
Linda Chavez writes:
Fifty state primaries or caucuses in which only a fraction of the voters participate is neither the most democratic nor the best method for choosing good presidential nominees.
We will never return to the old smoke-filled rooms that managed to produce balanced tickets and satisfy diverse constituencies, but maybe it’s time to rethink the current system.
I’d like to see a greater role for elected officials in selecting the nominee.
Now, I have a host of criticisms about the primary process, but it is a strange interpretation of “most democratic” to suggest that power should be shifted away from voters to elected officials.
I actually think we need more smoke-filled rooms.
Yeah, I’m in favor of smoke-filled rooms, too!
Well, you know, voting is so messy and to judged by… the common people…. Well! I just don’t know what to say.
Well, a lot of the political parties literature (US and comparative) would support such a claim.
It is not clear why you should need intra-party democracy for democracy itself to work, and it’s not clear that introducing it makes the resulting system “more democratic”.
@MSS: I can see an argument not wanting it or needing it.
I just find the claim that it is more democratic a bit odd, especially in this particular process, as she seems to be suggesting that something like “superdelegates” (a la the Democrats) improve the system, which I find to be a dubious claim.
And, too, since I am not all that happy with the way many elected officials (specifically members of Congress are selected) I am doubly dubious about Chavez’s claim.