Are the presidential nominations an accurate reflection of voters' wishes?

[Matilda]

I have just read a most thoughtful and well-reasoned articles by Geov
Parrish which I found on Common Dreams regarding the way candidates
are chosen for the presidential nominations, and why.

(excerpt)....Even if Kucinich (or Sharpton, etc.) got two-thirds of
every primary and caucus held in America, Democratic Party leaders
have the final say in who gets nominated. They will never - ever -
allow the nomination for our country's highest ofice of someone they
feel is inherently unelectable. And the non-electability of Kucinich
is based on exactly the same thing as his greatest appeal: that he is
saying things his party leaders don't dare, and that he is willing
to rock the boat and challenge our country's status quo in a way
party insiders never, ever will."

Here is the link to the article: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-06.htm

There is much more, presented in a way that makes the American
political processes clear to an outsider such as myself. But it got
me wondering whether the system bypasses the wishes of voters to
an extent that doesn't happen to that degree in other democracies
that have genuinely open elections. What is the point of primaries
if the results are going to be ignored? Should there be more
primaries all over the country, so that a wider profile of candidates
is obtained, and a truly "consensus" candidate can emerge? Or
perhaps they should be scrapped altogether, and the parties go
straight to their conventions, where the real decisions are made.

I can see and understand why the party leaders won't allow a radical
of any persuasion to become the nominee, but does that mean all
candidates will be centrist? In other words, no real idealogy, no
firm beliefs, no clear policies - just the person who's the final
product of all the wheeling and dealing, favours bought and sold,
bargains made. Given that in many ways the north and south of the
U.S. seem to be different countries, and given the size and varied
composition of the population, is it possible to have a strong
Democratic candidate who appeals both to voters and the Democratic
leadership?

Putting aside all the worries about Republican manoeuvres, and touch-
screen voting, and downright fraud - do DUers feel that their
nominees will ever be given a fair shot at the White House? Or are
we doomed to see Republican-lites and blancmanges as the Democratic
candidates?

[arewethereyet]

1. I don't see how the could be

how can a couple of people be expected to be an accurate reflection of a hundred million people or more ?

I think the best that you can hope for is to get a guy thats close for most people.

[Walt Starr]

2. I honestly believe they are closer to the voter's will than the Republican

Party's primaries.

Seriously look at how Democratic Party politics work. The Party elite wield great power in both parties but there's a huge difference between the back room shenanigans in them.

In the Republican Party, once the deal is sealed on who is going to lead, everybody gets in lock step.

For those who would lead the Democratic Party effectively, a course in cat herding is highly recommended.

[Matilda]

3. I still have things to learn about American politics.

I was just surprised to read that the primaries don't necessarily
count for much. I thought the whole point was to gauge voter
reaction to candidates and see who had popular appeal. I realise
that popularity with one group - e.g. progressive Democrats -
doesn't necessarily translate into general electability, but I
thought that winning a lot of primaries would be a plus. If the
party leaders want candidates who aren't going to offend anybody,
they're going to end up with people who are pretty bland.