Our Political System
The primary elections have created a solid ground for the general election. Without the primaries, this solid ground would be lost. Recently, the idea has come to be, that whether the primary system is undemocratic. The purpose of the adoption of the primary system was to do none other than to choose a single candidate for a specific party. Thus, I take a stance in support of this questionable system. The following the reasons embolden the qualities making the primary system essential to the presidential election. First, the primaries do not harm democracy, but rather uphold, and strengthen its values. Second, this system was brought in by the people, and was brought in to do none other to help society, for the people. Last, is elaborating on the purpose, and reason, the primary system was created.

First, democracy does not negatively affect democracy, but contrarily helps it. It benefits the democratic value of equality, by allowing everyone to vote. A system of this sort cannot be a detriment to our government. Dr. Michael McDonald of Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University states, “Open primaries are an alternative solution to the problems of gerrymandering. By allowing voters from all parties to participate in a party primary, candidates must appeal to all voters rather than only their party base.” I would like to also point out, that America is a representative democracy and when considering its democratic values we must also consider its representative values. By getting rid of the primaries, we will be getting rid of a strong, democratically represented system, which would harm our country, making this action undemocratic.

Secondly, the primary system was voted for and adopted by the United States under the say and power of the people. If this system were to be removed, it would harm these benefits. Harming the people is the exact opposite of what democracy wants. A democracy is made for the people, and if the people wanted a primary election to occur, then it cannot be undemocratic. What would be the reason of introducing this system in the first place? The primary election system in the USA emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century in an era of progressiveness as a reaction against strong party organizations and their control over nominations. The ACE Encyclopedia on electoral knowledge, on March 14th 2006 states, “The importance of primaries in the US voting and candidate selection system has grown considerably in recent decades. As a result, voters have gained more influence over candidate selection while the power of party leaders and organizations has declined.” The people have been giving the power a democracy is supposed to give them, and abolishing this system, would be undemocratic.

Lastly, is the purpose the primaries were created. The purpose of this system is to do none other than to choose a single nominee to represent, a party. Justice and equality, few values of democracy, cannot be harmed by this, because the people are voting on who they want. If a candidate is not elected to be a nominee, it is not the fault of the primary system, but rather the fault of the peoples’ opinions. Even if a candidate is not elected to represent a party, he or she can still run as an independent, and is not excluded in any way. Without having this system, the voting process will become more corrupt. Strong party organizations will receive a control over nominations. Secret ballots enabling free voting for party nominees will come back into the picture. The people would lose the power of voting, and democracy would lose the power it has today.

In conclusion, the primary system has benefited U.S. democracy, and losing this system would have negative impacts on democracy. Any negative asset to democracy can clearly be considered undemocratic. The said reasons have shown how heavy the system is to the top American interest of democracy. Thus, I believe the primary system should remain upheld.