I don't think people really realize this, that other countries we see as having a more functional party system than ours are ones where "leadership contests" go by much faster in which campaigning for rank-and-file votes matters a lot less
-
-
Show this thread
-
My hot take is that - looking at the Republican side more than the Democratic side - 2016 may have been evidence that turning the nomination process into a popular democracy circus may have been a very bad idea
Show this thread -
But it's very hard to walk it back after you've made a system a popular democracy, to go back to smoke-filled rooms
Show this thread -
Anyway I find it ironic and amusing that this year the Green Party electorate exploded in anger over their primary process was "rigged", as though this is a meaningful thing to fight about when you're a tiny symbolic third party
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There's also nothing really in the constitution that stipulates parties even have to have primaries in the first place. The only reason we do is BECAUSE it gets more people to vote.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah it's a bad take. Is they said the process "is cancer" I'd know it was hyperbole and be like yeah I get where you're coming from.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think American primaries are the only system I've seen where you 1) have the polls at different times, and therefore 2) have people drop out midway through the race, 3) without rerunning votes that happened before the dropouts. Which is bonkers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.