I thought that that was an effort to inject a popular element, a democratic element into the selection of a person who, once he is selected and confirmed, is beyond electoral control.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Elections are about choices.
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
In a government such as ours we have vigorous contests to determine who should lead. The recent election was no exception. Now we inaugurate a new government on a day that transcends any one individual or any one party.
Sometimes in politics, you get a wallop in the electoral process.
A national primary election would electrify the people and give them a larger stake in the outcome.
The voters of the country decide who they want to support, and the delegates are elected to also make a determination of who would be in the best interest of the party and the country to be our nominee.
Elections, for their part, are typically popularity contests rather than measures of candidates' relative competency or effectiveness. Imagine if scientific truth were determined according to which scientist was most popular. To be successful, scientists would have to be charismatic and attractive - and human knowledge would suffer terribly.
Every democracy is constructed day-to-day. And the electoral process reduces and minimalizes every single aspect of human complexity. We're putting it into pamphlets. We're doing a publicity show. We're becoming symbols.
Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.
Let's not give the electoral process so much importance. We have to be cynical about it. Let's give importance to the real democracy that's constructed on a day-to-day basis. That's my hopeful perspective on it.