The other 50% are blissfully ignorant. 
As it says in the article āAmerica is one of the few countriesā allowing mass opinion in selection of candidates. It sounds like a great idea in theory but, from the outside the result seems to be an endless election that sucks up money and guarantees that any successful candidate will be beholden to large donors and also will have endured a shitstorm of attack ads from which the stink and innuendo will hang around the rest of their career.
The election funding attack endless loop canāt be good for discourse.
Breaking the duopoly seems like an even more important issue to me. Then bancampaign funding and have public funds available for the candidates (much less of course). The circus seems counter-productive. Politics is toxic already.
(removed a line as it was from a position of ignorance of US political system and therefore added nothing)
It is rigged towards a centrist field. Two party systems have to fight over a centre ground which pushes out any alternative and challenging ideas.
It is meant to create stability and keep people like Trump out but in times of stress any system can break.
What happens in the general will show how successful divisive fear mongering can be in America.
But dont forget Obama was a vote for big change , its a shame he was not head strong enough and was castrated in the mid terms.
Once again, headline is creative.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that more than 50% of U.S. voters believe the system that American political parties use to select their candidates for President is ārigged.ā
Those are called presidential primaries, not elections. And of course theyāre rigged, or at least biased. The parties want some control so some manic real estate mogul doesnāt slip in there. This is a case of Trump telling the truth.
Yāall motherfuckers need proportional representation.
Thatās what it looks like to me at least. They basically have an almost two year election campaign, itās ridiculous. Most of the time of the people who are supposed to be governing is taken up by one campaign or another and theyāre always scrambling for funds and votes.
No system is perfect, but the one Iām familiar with is one with multiple political parties, a ban on political ads, and a ban on campaigning before about two or three months before an election. Also, we vote for parties, not people. The parties choose their own lists of candidates for each area and we vote for their lists, mainly focusing on their candidate for prime minister even if theyāre not usually on my local list. The rest of the people on the list get to be MPs if their party gets enough votes. Usually I only have a vague idea who the individuals on the list Iām voting for are as Iām voting for their partyās programme, not them individually. Then we do basically the same but on a local level for local elections at the halfway point between parliamentary elections.
Only half?
Also, we have just two political parties to share between 330 million people. Thatās just stupid. How can anyone claim to be represented by this political system?
Maybe Americans do need a proportional representation. They do not, however, need to be called āmotherfuckersā.
Not sure if Iām reading this correctly. There are congressional, senate, governor, and a few other offices all have primaries to vote on candidates for the general elections.
Supreme Court Justice is the biggest exception to being voted on by the public. Even they get voted on, but by the Senate.
Out of America having a failing electoral system and people calling one another curse words on the internet, you have chosen the more difficult problem to solve.
How about ākneebitersā?
Giving @xeni the benefit of the doubt, an election is both an event and a process. The primaries set the ballot; if the primaries are rigged, the ballot is rigged; if the ballot is rigged, the election is rigged.
In fact the process is rigged even before the primaries, because to be eligible, candidates must bring millions of dollars to the table. The biggest donors select the pool of candidates; the primaries just choose from the pool. (See Lesterland.)
Youāre reading it right, Iām just wrong!
I suppose senate primaries (now that I write it I can see it as something Iāve read!) donāt get much international coverage.
Back in the dark ages, when there were no primaries at all and the party stalwarts got together to pick the candidates with zero voter input, I donāt think we ever got a matchup nearly as bad as Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton.
You can make that connection but when youāre reporting on an actual pole result report on the actual pole not what you think is the obvious conclusion from the pole. Peopleās opinions donāt always (or even usually) follow cleanly from one position to another.
Some are called caucuses.
