Explain and analyse three ways in which the process for selecting presidential candidates is open to criticism.

Since 1972 – and the McGovern-Fraser Commission reforms which attempted to make the process more democratic – presidential candidates have been selected through caucuses and primaries which determine delegates at national nominating conventions. However, this has led to potential criticisms of the process, namely that it is costly, lacks peer review, and contributes to ideological polarisation.
Firstly, the process is far too long and thus far too expensive. Primaries encourage early candidacy announcements - such as Ted Cruz announcing 11 months before the first 2016 primary - leading to long and costly campaigns. In 2016, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders raised over $500 million between them just for the Democratic primary battle. Not only is this money which the party could have better spent campaigning to beat their Republican opponent, it also leads to accusations of candidates being ‘bought’ by big donors and pressure groups, thus making the process less accountable.
Secondly, the process lacks peer review. Before the McGovern-Fraser Commission, candidates were chosen by fellow professional politicians, whose expertise meant they were better placed to choose a candidate with presidential qualities than ordinary voters. These professional politicians have to work with successful candidates in government, especially across legislature-executive divides, a clear problem in Donald Trump’s selection as the Republican candidate in 2016 – described by some Republicans as a ‘hostile takeover’ – when he subsequently had difficulty working with his own congressional party.
Lastly, the primary and caucus system could allow the emergence of more ideologically extreme candidates. This could lead to further polarisation between the two final general election candidates or, for parties, candidates not moderate enough to appeal to a wide base of voters. Primary voters tend to be older, wealthier, better educated and more ideological than the average voter, meaning more ideological candidates can do well, and primary results can be unrepresentative of the general view.