Iran's New Leader Breaks Silence, Issues Threats Against US and Arab Neighbors
Gavin Newsom Is Crushing the Field In This 2028 Preview
Corrupt Illinois Mayor Thinks She Can Win in Georgia As a Republican
The Democrats' Surf and Turf Narrative Is Completely Cooked
Active Shooter at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan
Check Out What London Is Now Recommending City Buses Carry for Some Unspoken...
Gunman Dead After Opening Fire at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia
Senator Josh Hawley Makes Major Announcement About Popular Abortion Pill
Women Do Not Have to Compromise on Trans Rights
No Comparison: Prophet vs. King
President Trump Unloads on Thomas Massie at Kentucky Rally: ‘We Gotta Get Rid...
Tim Burchett Blasts ‘Snobs’ Attacking Trump DHS Nominee Markwayne Mullin Over Lack of...
Just Days After ISIS-Inspired Terror Attack in NYC, Here's What Mayor Mamdani Is...
Here's What Trump Had to Say About Those Iranian Sleeper Cells
Trans Mania Sweeps New Mexico Schools – Even Elementaries Will ‘Affirm’ Gender Choices
Tipsheet

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

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