That’s the view of the Left because, after all, average American individual[s are] morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of [our] responsibilities as…democrat[s].
That contempt for us is made explicit by The Washington Post. Writing for the Editors, Director of Graduate Studies for the Political Science and International Affairs MA Programs, Associate Professor and Assistant Chair [who’s she/Marquette trying to convince of her importance: us or Azari?] Julia Azari wrote—and she’s serious:
A better primary system would empower elites to bargain and make decisions, instructed by voters.
Because Elites know better. We’re just dumb farmers and factory workers in flyover country, can’t even learn to code. But WaPo/Azari wasn’t done.
The system as it works now…What it’s not great at is choosing among the many candidates…. A process in which intermediate representatives—elected delegates who understand the priorities of their constituents—can bargain without being bound to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better reflect what voters want.
Because those “intermediates,” those Know Better Elites, will perforce do a better job than us unwashed masses in choosing who we hire to lead us for a cycle. But wait…
Different states jockey for influence in the official primary. … Elites try to shape the decision early on. Everyone is doing guesswork about what others want. Reforms to the process should try to make that guessing a bit more informed.
It’s not enough to freeze us commoners out of the process, even the States in our federated republic should be denied. Know Betters should be able to do more than merely “try to shape” from early stages. Here’s the Know Betters’ freeze:
The results [of the reformed process] would be public but not binding; a way to inform elites about voter preferences.
The people’s choice is not binding on anything. I’m reminded of an old spaghetti sauce ad: Give it here, Rosa; I’ll decide, says the father to his wife at the family’s dinner table.
The piece closed with this:
Why not invest some resources in finding out what voters really think, and then allow party delegates to figure out how those opinions can translate into a winning ticket?
We do know what voters “really think:” they voted. Sadly, though, they thought wrong, and Know Betters need to correct the error. Party must decide who will be on the general election ballot, not primary election voters. Sort of like the Communist Party of China does for Hong Kong.
And this “reform” will negate average Americans‘ choices in the general election by dictating to us the Party lists for our choices.
The attitude that Elites—Know Betters—should rule was confirmed in Wednesday’s Progressive-Democratic Presidential candidate debate Wednesday night. When asked by one of the moderators in the end game of the debate whether, at a brokered convention, the candidate entering the brokerage with the plurality of delegates (elected by actual voters) should be the nominee,
…all but Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) rejected the notion that the candidate with the “most delegates” should become the Democratic nominee.
Because they thought voters were going to make the wrong choice and nominate Sanders.
This is the gang that wants to rule over our nation.
Aside: the WaPo piece originally was headlined It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president, but the tabloid doesn’t even have the courage of its own convictions; after some social media opprobrium, the editors collectively [sic] ducked under their desks and changed the headline to its present It’s time to switch to preference primaries. This, too, is representative of the gang that wants to rule over our nation.
