The Woke Billionaires and Democrat-Loving Corporations Are on Their Own
The Non-Profit Political Scam
CBS Removes Trans Mandates From Its Reporting; NY Times Accuses War Crimes With...
Standards? What Standards?
Tintin Was Deadly Wrong
Mamdani's Fantasy World of Equal Outcome
Tricia McLaughlin Defends ICE's Visible Presence
Iran Past, Present, and Future: A Conversation With Marziyeh Amirizadeh, Part 2
Tearing Down Our History
Chaos Is the Strategy, and Too Many Are Helping It Succeed
California Man Pleads Guilty to Laundering Over $1.5M and Evading Taxes on $4M
Venezuelan Man Shot After Assaulting ICE Agent With Shovel
House Committee IT Staffer Charged With Stealing 240 Government Phones Worth $150K
Justice Department Challenges Minnesota’s Affirmative Action Hiring Requirements
Founder of LGBTQ+ Nonprofit Casa Ruby Sentenced in Federal Fraud Case
Tipsheet

WaPo Opinion Piece Calls For Elites to Have a 'Bigger Say in Choosing President'

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

“Democracy Dies in Darkness” may be The Washington Post’s slogan, but after running an opinion piece calling for elitists to have more control in U.S. elections, many are wondering if it’s actually the paper’s mission statement.  

Advertisement

“It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president,” reads the op-ed written by Julia Azari, an associate professor and assistant chair in Marquette University’s political science department. 

In the piece, Azari makes the case that the uncertainty of the primary process doesn’t help political parties prepare for the general election. "Preference primaries” would be a better system, she argued. 

For decades, the conversation about nominations has been about the conflicts between party elites and everyone else. Today, that conversation is counterproductive. A better approach is to think about how voters and elites could best play their different roles: to make their political parties more representative while ultimately narrowing the nomination choice down to one person. And the best way to do that would be through preference primaries.

Preference primaries could allow voters to rank their choices among candidates, as well as to register opinions about their issue priorities — like an exit poll, but more formal and with all the voters. The results would be public but not binding; a way to inform elites about voter preferences.

This process could accompany a primary of the sort we’re used to — in which voters’ first choices instruct the delegates, and preferences come into play only if there’s no clear winner. The primaries could also be held in combination with elections for convention delegates so that these representatives are informed by their constituents’ preferences. This would also help voters hold these delegates accountable in the future. The point is to build a way for party elites to understand what their base is thinking, and to allow them to bargain so that these different preferences and priorities can be balanced. (WaPo)

Advertisement

As you could've guessed, the piece did not go over well on social media. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement