Here's Why I'm Concerned
Anyone Catch CNN's Embarrassing Error About the J6 Pipe Bomb Suspect?
Dan Bongino Wonders Why the FBI Seemingly Stopped Looking for the J6 Bomb...
People Are Driving to Tim Walz's House and Calling Him This...It's Hilarious
Here's What Caused a Lefty Trump Supporter to Laugh in the Face of...
Democrats Say Aftyn Behn Is the Future of Their Party? We're Fine With...
MS NOW Melts Down After SCOTUS Hands Texas Redistricting Win
Keith Ellison Has No Regrets About His Handling of the Feeding Our Future...
The Welcome Demise of Climate Change Catastrophism
Making the Judiciary Great Again
Those Lazy, Hazy, Crazy Days of Skipping 'Morning Joe'
Closing the Door on Immigration? Not Yet.
Socialism Is Antithetical to the Genuine American Dream
The War Is Not Over, and There Is No Peace
Who Knew? Being Your Own Boss Can Contribute to the Nation's Birth Rate
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