> I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate
Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point. Primaries and the included competition weed out candidates who can't handle attacks.
Democracy works far better than governments that aren't chosen openly by their people. It's an extraordinary strength, not a weakness.
> Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point.
There's always a cost/friction between internal democratic competition and external adversarial competition. This is why the US didn't (and doesn't) have direct voting on war declaration - hell, a handful of recent presidents decided that even Congress is too slow for them. You could argue that the lack of a referendum before declaring war is an "anti-democracy talking point"
This is a loaded explanation. Yes, war does require quick response, which is hard to achieve in a decentralized state. The small nuance is that war or similar events are comprising a tiny fraction of what a government does (not by impact, but by total amount of things to do). And guess what, direct voting is just fine and fast enough for such thinks as any and all taxes, industry wide restrictions or permissions, economic focus, foreign policy, immigration, healthcare, education, social security and so on.
> And guess what, direct voting is just fine and fast enough for such thinks as ... economic focus, foreign policy, immigration, ...
How would 2 countries wirh direct voting negotiate a trade treaty that requires give and take? Have a referendum on each proposed clause modification? How long would that take? Even though you dislike it, representative democracy is a necessary optimization, which is why every surviving polity uses it to a degree. Even coops like Mondragon appoints officers for say to say operations.
Can you name a single entity with more than 500 members, and operates daily that uses direct voting?
Lots of places use direct voting on many issues, including Switzerland, California, ...
> negotiations
It doesn't seem hard to conceive of and it's widely done: The negotation is done by representatives, who bring the final agreement to their constituents for approval.
For example, that is how unions handle collective bargaining agreements, and sometimes the leadership's proposal loses.
There is no country with direct voting (aka democracy) since Ancient Greece. Swiss are close and they are alone. But I wish that such a country existed.
Also, I didn't say that ALL decisions needs to be directly voted upon by the whole population. But core concepts should be. And there should be a mechanism to surface people's concerns to a referendum level too, e.g. after getting a certain amount of signatures or votes. Getting to your question, people can decide in general, do they want to join a trade treaty with countries a, b, c and that should be enough I think, at least for the early form of such democracy.
> This is why the US didn't (and doesn't) have direct voting on war declaration
No, it's because the US doesn't have direct voting on any national issue; there is no legal provision for it afaik. US citizens only elect representatives, and they make the decisions.
> a handful of recent presidents decided that even Congress is too slow for them
What are you referring to?
No President before Trump II has entered a war without consulting Congress (and the people) and obtaining their support. After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor - when the US was most in direct peril in the last two centuries - Roosevelt spoke to Congress and the American people, and Congress declared war.
Most wars, however, don't have a formal declaration of war by Congress.
Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point. Primaries and the included competition weed out candidates who can't handle attacks.
Democracy works far better than governments that aren't chosen openly by their people. It's an extraordinary strength, not a weakness.