Reforming the presidential primaries system

Reforming the presidential primaries system (essay plan)

Reform needed	Not needed	Conclusion
PARTY DIVISIONS. The nomination process produces a civil war mentality within each party; mutual disagreements can turn to insults and intensify to a point where it truly appears that the party is divided. The most notable example would be the rivalry between Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama in the 2008 primaries, such divisions destroy party morale, take a while to heal and discourage people from politics.	Even if divisions do arise they can easily be ‘healed’ after the election as Obama did by appointing Clinton as Secretary of State. Or through the later stages of the election process, such as the National Party Conventions, which once again enthuse the party faithfuls and allow for wounds to be healed, for instance, Bill Clinton’s speech at the Dem NPC reassured everyone that he and Hilary will be glad to have Obama as President.	Party wounds are healed too late which can lead to candidates losing elections, though this has not happened in recent years it is very well likely.
TOO LONG. The primary process is far too long, on average the incumbent president and the challenging candidates spend at least 10 months campaigning for the nomination. The 2016 nomination process began in 2015 with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Hilary Clinton announcing their intentions to run. Critics argue that by the time this long process ends, voters become apathetic, bored and unwilling to engage in issues since they’ve been over-exposed to them through the long campaigning.	The fact that it is long process is a good thing as it emphasises the fact that the nomination process is a grueling process for a grueling office. This ensures that the primaries are an effective weeding-out process in which weaker candidates stand no chance (as was the case with Jimmy Carter). Rick Perry, for instance, in 2012 was a top-tier candidate when he announced his candidacy (Aug ’11), but as the campaigning began he was revealed to be a weak and clearly unprepared for high national office and was forced to pull out of the race less than 6 months later.	Primaries have got exceptionally low turnouts (15.9%) nation wide, highest was in Wisconsin at 30.9% and lowest in Maine at 5.6%, evidently voters become disinterested in politics during this long process.
FRONT LOADING. Primaries are supposed to be a lengthy process but as a result of frontloading this is no longer the case. In the 2008 primaries a total of 20 states frontloaded to the first week of February. Candidates who are less known don’t have much time to build up their campaign teams nor raise enough money and are thus, more likely to lose. Also, the last states may feel disenfranchised, as arguably the winner will already be announced in the frontloaded primaries.	The frontloading tend reversed in 2012 in which significantly less portion of states frontloaded. The U.S is a large country and it is inevitable the primary process is going to be long regardless of frontloading. Also, by cutting the primary season shorter the presidential candidates are selected faster, thus allowing them to campaign as presidential candidates rather than nominees.	Regardless, frontloading disenfranchises states and eliminates lesser known candidates from the process and only allows the political elite to prosper through endorsement by political patrons like the Koch Brothers who pledged to spend $889 in 2016 endorsing certain candidates.
PEER REVIEW. Primaries lack peer review, prior to reform in the 1970s party bosses in smoke filled rooms selected nominees and these bosses knew the qualities required to make a good presidential candidate. However, today this no longer happens and voters are unaware of the characteristics and qualities required, instead of judging governing skills voters arguably look more at campaigning skills.	However, professional politicians do still have a say in the nomination process as seen by the introduction of superdelegates who amount of 20% of the total vote. Also, it is less elitist this way. And arguably, campaigning skills are just as vital in time when everything is dominated by the media. Ordinary voters understand that it is a race for a very demanding job and so, judge governing skills as seen by the fact that many voters perceived Obama as being the stronger candidate than Clinton in 2008. It also allows for unknown candidates like Obama to have a shot at presidency rather than Washington insiders like H. Clinton.	The vote of the superdelegates isn’t very significant and there is still a lack of peer review from professional politicians who know of the qualities required to make a good president, under the current system there is a risk of a weak candidate being selected.
TOO EXPENSIVE. The primary system runs on for so long that as a result they’re very expensive, in 2012 Romney raised $156m and Obama $300m. Their nomination came at a time of economic austerity, which is ironic; proves that American elections are all about paying to play. This makes elections disproportionate to opposition as well as minor party candidates who are excluded from the process and thus, further deepening the two-party system.	It is not the nomination system that is at fault here but the various Supreme Court decisions and the power of the First Amendment. Through rulings in the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org case Super PACs have been formed allowing for an unlimited flow of money to candidates. The McCutchen v. FEC decision illustrates that the cost of elections are just a problem that cannot be solved without inflicting on the Bill of Rights and thus, the primary system is not at fault here.	However, the primary system is at fault given the fact that it is dominated by the media too much and thus, people have to resort to Super PACs in order to support their candidate.
MEDIA DOMINATED. Disproportionate influence of the media have contributed to the impression that the system is flawed. The partisan nature of radio and TV debates and the modern day emphasis on personality politics has led to a significant increase in TV debates during the nomination process, personality-based politics rather than principled discussion.	However, the primary process being dominated by the media is also an advantage as it encourages voter participation if voters are continuously hearing and seeing campaigns on TV and the radio, and as demonstrated earlier, turnouts at primaries are low.	Regardless of the media turnouts remain considerably low and seem to be decreasing each time. The media has got a disproportionate amount of influence.