Alex Christoforou
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Democracy dies in darkness indeed…
The Washington Post is taking heat over a Tuesday op-ed authored by Marquette University political science professor Julia Azari, titled “It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president.”
Michael Krieger on Twitter: “There’s a reason I take screenshots.The illustrious Washington Post changed its headline after too many peasants made fun of it. pic.twitter.com/yeqgbHa0Ve / Twitter”
There’s a reason I take screenshots.The illustrious Washington Post changed its headline after too many peasants made fun of it. pic.twitter.com/yeqgbHa0Ve
Azari argues that the Democratic party’s primary process is overly-complicated and convoluted, and the process of choosing the nominee should instead be placed in the hands of politicians instead.
After outrage ensued, the Post changed the headline to the far less inflammatory “It’s time to switch to preference primaries.”
The article reads:
The current process is clearly flawed, but what would be better? … A better primary system would empower elites to bargain and make decisions, instructed by voters.
One lesson from the 2020 and 2016 election cycles is that a lot of candidates, many of whom are highly qualified and attract substantial followings, will inevitably enter the race. The system as it works now — with a long informal primary, lots of attention to early contests and sequential primary season that unfolds over several months — is great at testing candidates to see whether they have the skills to run for president. What it’s not great at is choosing among the many candidates who clear that bar, or bringing their different ideological factions together, or reconciling competing priorities. A process in which intermediate representatives — elected delegates who understand the priorities of their constituents — can bargain without being bound to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better reflect what voters want.
Instead of primaries in which caucuses are held to pick primary delegates, Azari suggests that the parties should use “preference primaries” which would “allow voters to rank their choices among candidates, as well as to register opinions about their issue priorities.”
This would allow the ‘elites’ to choose a nominee based on what the voters want – a strategy Azari admitted is “labor-intensive and a little risky,” according to Breitbart.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
As if the elites don’t already have enough control so , perhaps, its the ‘right’ elites he’s thinking of ie. which group of oligarchs gets to fool the people. Kinda like it is now so he must support the wrong oligarchs.
Here is an article that looks at the billionaire donors who are controlling the top three Democratic candidates:
https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-democrats-billionaire-donors-buying.html
US elections already are in the hands of politicians — politicians who have money, who can rig elections, who can manipulate the media, and who can ignore the will of the prople. This ignorant academic only wants to make it official.
The dregs at the bottom of the journalism barrel rooting for the scum to rise to the top.
Is Bezos a closet fascist?