Original article from The Atlantic

Phew, this article is a doozy. If you’re interested in reading more about the peculiarities of the primary process, do I have the article for you! There are definitely some issues I have with the article that I’ll detail briefly a little later, but I think it puts a lot in perspective when it comes to the primary system. Basically, the primary process is not really that good at selecting the best candidate. In the past, the primary system has relied on a backstage kind of system where party elders and leaders weeded out the proper candidate for the party based on a number of factors, most of them having to do with how much they appeal to allies of the party (corporations and special interests, oh my!). However, the 2016 election kind of threw that out the window. One other fun feature of the primary system is that the candidate who eventually becomes the nominee may have been selected due to there never having been a possible second choice amidst other random variables. This could mean a lot of different things for down the road into this selection process. It bodes well for certain candidates over others, surely. The only thing I really see as certain though, is our favorite cable news channels’ pie charts are completely and utterly useless. 

The article goes on to explain how the process used to work; in “hazy, smoke-filled rooms” where these party elites figure out the best candidate for the party. It’s here that I think the writer makes a big mistake in arguing for a return to this system ruled in the background by party insiders. They make a compelling argument, but some evidence used are studies wherein the sample group/size is not explained, so you simply can’t accept that statistic at face-value. The article also argues that the party insiders are better at choosing a candidate that governs better than the majority, right after claiming the primary system has inherent flaws. Wouldn’t then the proper (most democratic) solution be to fix that? I also think it fails to take into account that these insiders have selected leaders that put us into both the Vietnam War and the War in Afghanistan. I’m not sure I would consider that largely “good governance” among many other issues that we seem to still deal with. This argument also puts too much faith in political professionals/experts. It’s not like you’re asking a plumber which kind of coupling is best for that joint, you’re talking about the future of a nation that hasn’t happened yet. It’s a little bit difficult to be an expert unless you have a crystal ball. 

That being said, definitely give this article, linked below, a read with some of these thoughts in mind. It does explain pretty well how the Presidents we’ve had in the past 100 years rose to power, and how the system is just totally flawed. Hopefully, you’ll learn something too!