(07-24-2018 09:11 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  When the parties made the decision to turn the candidate selection process over to the primary system in a two party state, it assured the purging of moderates. The idea it is Obama's fault or Trump's or Bush or Clinton ignores the actual trends as the primary system has matured.

For simplicity. Let's say 60% of Americans are essentially moderates. About 2/3rds won't align with a party at all, 1/3rd will cast their lot with one or the other.
Of the remaining 40%, you have 20% well to the right or far right and 20% are well to the left or far left.

When a primary arrives. The far elements of each party are more engaged in politics and will show up to support the candidate. The moderates are less motivated and dispersed between the two parties when they do align.

The system assures the most far right and far left candidates the easiest path to a nomination.

The only time moderates have had success in a primary system was when a state for all intents and purposes was a one party state because then moderates were less likely to be diluted and more likely to show up for a primary because it was their only opportunity to vote for the person who would win the office.

The primary system nearly nominated as a Democrat a person who adamantly declares to not be a Democrat. It also nominated a person who at various times has declared himself to be a Democrat, a Republican, and a third-party person. There is no gate-keeping function to assure that say the nominee for Governor and Lieutenant Governor hold similar positions.

The primary system that was supposed to better reflect the mood of the public does the exact opposite by diluting the impact of moderates and increasing the influence of more radical voters.

In that sense the jungle primary system of Louisiana (and adopted by California) would be a better system.

Which actually cuts against 'party sponsorship'. When you think about the current primary system has one or more opposing rabbles of people: in this example call them Pepsi, Coke, and RC parties.

In the traditional primary system each rabble wants, as a group, to put forward whom, in their own rabble-consciousness, best promotes which each group does. In order to get as many people in their own respective gang to make that decision, they employ the state infrastructure of a voting process to their collective choice.

Employing a jungle primary kind of destroys the power of the rabble; it feeds the choices directly to the people as a whole without the filter effect of each private group making a determination who might best represent their collective rabble's view of 'best'.