Contradictory Critique of the Day

January 5, 2012

Comments

Fifty state primaries or caucuses in which only a fraction of the voters participate is neither the most democratic nor the best method for choosing good presidential nominees.

Her solution?

We will never return to the old smoke-filled rooms that managed to produce balanced tickets and satisfy diverse constituencies, but maybe it’s time to rethink the current system.

[…]

I’d like to see a greater role for elected officials in selecting the nominee.

Now, I have a host of criticisms about the primary process, but it is a strange interpretation of “most democratic” to suggest that power should be shifted away from voters to elected officials.

6 responses to “Contradictory Critique of the Day”

michael reynolds

January 5, 2012 at 11:46 am

I actually think we need more smoke-filled rooms.
John Burgess

January 5, 2012 at 1:12 pm

Yeah, I’m in favor of smoke-filled rooms, too!
OzarkHillbilly

January 5, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Well, you know, voting is so messy and to judged by… the common people…. Well! I just don’t know what to say.
MSS

January 5, 2012 at 5:50 pm

Well, a lot of the political parties literature (US and comparative) would support such a claim.

It is not clear why you should need intra-party democracy for democracy itself to work, and it’s not clear that introducing it makes the resulting system “more democratic”.
Steven L. Taylor

January 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm

@MSS: I can see an argument not wanting it or needing it.

I just find the claim that it is more democratic a bit odd, especially in this particular process, as she seems to be suggesting that something like “superdelegates” (a la the Democrats) improve the system, which I find to be a dubious claim.
Steven L. Taylor

January 5, 2012 at 7:13 pm

And, too, since I am not all that happy with the way many elected officials (specifically members of Congress are selected) I am doubly dubious about Chavez’s claim.