Back in the days the parties themselves actually selected who would represent the party in the general election. The state parties selected their representatives, usually people heavily involved in the party an most usually local and state and some national elected officials. Yes there were battles at the conventions which made the conventions of some importance and VERY interesting to watch. It prevented they campaigning beginning as soon as the winner of the last election just won and the years of campaigning and fund raising. Also produced the candidates the party most supported and represented what the party stood for. After the 1968 convention the other states, only 12 had primaries in 1968, decided to hold such primary elections as we now have. It's been downhill from there IMO. In fact the two parties may have candidates they don't really support running in the general elections if the party races continue as they have. That is because people who have nothing to do with the party will elect who runs under each banner. There is no "right" for those who do not belong to any party to have a voice in who the party selects to run. Primaries are only for the convenience of the parties. There is no Constitutional requirement for them, heck there is no Constitutional requirement the people even vote as to who will be President and Vice-President. In fact it may even open the door to third and fourth party candidates having a shot. And sure make for more interesting conventions. So the question, in order to cut down on the endless cycles of people running for President, the attention paid to it more than two years out, the money required to run a campaign and the possible influence that money requires in order to be raised.....................and the possible outcomes in particularly this year in both parties. Would it be better to eliminate the primaries altogether and go back to the conventions and the actual party delegates debating and choosing who best to represent the party in the election?
That system was abolished for a reason. It often produced nominees who were not supported by the majority of their party, such as Stephen Douglas and William Howard Taft. Not to mention, if the conventions dragged on for too long, they would end up nominating a compromise candidate, such as Warren G. Harding and John W. Davis.
i don't think we should vote for President at all. Majority party of the House should decide who is President.
I think in the vast majority it did produce the candidates the PARTIES supported. We may just see a year this year when the primaries select candidates the parties do not. - - - Updated - - - Going back would take the money out of the primary system. Repealing the 17th would take it out of the Senate.
An executive President who serves at the pleasure of the legislature is undesirable. Looking back at when the House of Representatives has appointed the President due to the lack of any candidate to reach a majority, it was used in a most partisan manner, throwing Presidents who should not have won into power. Sometimes a candidate would desire that no candidate get across the line as they were more popular in the legislature than the base. Henry Clay comes to mind, even though he got stung in the end. I feel that the governors of each of the states should appoint a representative to an executive council. The council will then vote among themselves for a commander in chief of the armed forces, but this will be considered as a minor responsibility. The council should be viewed as homogeneous in power. They should have a televised question time where any member can ask a question - this works rather well in Australia. It's important to prevent the making of media idols through giving them a single individual to focus on. If they have to cover the debate among various interests of different areas, the country is better off. That's what government is meant to do: moderate the local character of the federal bodies. The executive's powers should be strictly limited - far more than what Madison and Hamilton ever pretended they were in the constitution they were lobbying for. This would require a significant reshuffle in the structure of government. I feel it's worth it. The anti-federalists spoke of the dangers of one geographical region gaining a monopoly on the Presidency. While no state has the influence Virginia did in the first few decades after ratification, the fight for the Presidency and the spoils which come with it really divided the south and north to an extent which would not have been quite as probable in a collaborative executive. We see the remnants of this phenomenon today - when a President uses his veto power, executive orders and unconstitutional power over the declaration of war to enact his agenda. The North v. South conflict has been replaced by various classes, business interests, and minorities. A collaborative presidency at least allows different areas to have a say in the executive. It was impractical at the time of ratification, but instant communication and the ability to be anywhere on Earth within 12 hours change that.
I would have voted YES but for the restriction of the question "...and go back to the parties selection." There is no question the current political system is broken and needs drastic intervention returning the selection process to the parties would not improve the process. I have posted one of many possible solutions at Abet ABEP A Better Electoral Process
We have that system here and it sucks. Hell no. I'd rather there be individual nominees without any political parties at all. Just a name on the ballot box and no political party donors involved.
OK but that is not going to happen here or there and this is about the system here which is far different from there.
But even now Trump is not supported by the majority of the party, and is leading the race (yes we all think it's an anomaly, but let's wait until Q1 to finally say it was). In a way, "compromise candidates" types could still win the caucus in terms of someone that the party is not particularly wanting. The public are generally stupid, and those that have the money to throw at the media can reap the rewards - I think that's disgusting. An internal system could be reworked to help ensure majority support.
Sorta like when David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana as a Republican when the Republican party totally rebuke and rejected him. He merely checked that box on his submission to run.
