Evaluate the extent to which the process of selecting presidential candidates is deeply flawed

The primary process is criticised for being undemocratic due to the amount of power elites have in it. Staggered primaries are also criticised as they over exaggerates the importance of unrepresentative states. However, social media has lessened the control of party elites as candidates can generate their own media attention and donations. However, this can create a focus on style over substance meaning that whilst candidates personal lives may be scrutinised their policies are not, making the system overall, deeply flawed. The process for selecting presidential candidates is deeply flawed as the staggered primary system gives over-representation to certain states. As New Hampshire and Iowa are always first in the primary season they receive large amounts of press attention, giving them undue influence over more populated states such as California which appear later in the primary. Media attention also spurs turnout, meaning there is lower turnout in later states. In 2016 Louisiana only had 18% voter turnout compared to Iowa which had 52% creating a cycle where candidates pay more attention to states higher on the roster, as they have higher turnout. In both New Hampshire and Iowa the caucasian population is over 90% meaning they are not representative of the demographic of the US as a whole. As these states play such an important role in determining the media attention and contributions to candidates who succeed in these primaries, it could be argued that non white voters are given less power in the primaries as states such as Louisiana with large black populations, or California with large hispanic population do not appear until later on in the primaries when clear front runner have already emerged. However, this imbalance does not necessarily affect non-white candidates. Obama won the Iowa caucus with, giving him momentum to take on the Clinton campaign despite his loses in the invisible primary. In conclusion however, there have not been enough examples of non white presidential candidates in both parties to prove that Obama is not an outlier. Overall, staggered primaries give undue power to unrepresentative states, in determining the course of the primaries and may also contribute to voter fatigue and general apathy as there are so many elections taking place that people lose interest in the process making the final candidate appear legitimate, meaning that overall the process for selecting presidential candidates is deeply flawed.  The process of selecting presidential candidates is also deeply flawed due to the influence of party elites. Party elites play a significant role in the invisible primaries where endorsements and donations are the prime judgement of a candidates viability. During the primaries candidates cannot use party infrastructure meaning that all money must be raised on their own, giving an advantage to candidates who already have notoriety within the party, making it harder for lesser known candidates to enter the field. In the 2016 Democratic Primary Clinton secured 523 endorsements before the first primary, higher than any other recent democratic nominee, which meant the field was effectively closed to any other candidates who wished to make a bid for president. Out of five candidates who took part in the Democratic debate only two were long time members of the party, illustrating how the importance of party endorsement can lock lesser known candidates out of the debate. However, the invisible primary was not a determining factor for the Republican party in 2016. Trump did not receive his first endorsement until three weeks after the Iowa caucus, demonstrating that party elites did not control the trajectory of the party. Trump also spent far less then his opponents. Ted Cruz, spent $86m against Trump’s $63m, while Ben Carson had spent almost twice as much as Trump when he dropped his bid in early March ($61m versus $33m), demonstrating that money is not necessarily the determining factor in politics anymore. Social media has made traditional factors such as TV ad buys less of an important factor. Jeb Bush spent $82 million on media but Trump got $1,898 million in free media, largely due to his controversial tweets illustrating that social media may have lessened the power of traditional donors and super pacs as social media allows Candidates to generate their own media attention and internet donation. However, overall Trump due to his name recognition and personal finances may be an outlier alongside Reagan and Clinton the only other president since the 1960s to win the election without winning the invisible primaries. In conclusion the rise in social media means that Party elites may not be as important for a candidate success. The internet has enabled small dollar donations to become a stable feature of elections, and as both Sanders and Trump showed candidates can generate media attention without being established members of either party, meaning that over all party elites have less power and the system is therefore not entirely flawed. The primary process is arguably not flawed as it is a rigorous test of candidate's suitability for the general election. The increased importance of media scrutiny in primaries means the public can find out anything undesirable about the candidates that may hurt their prospects before the general election. Gary Hart was a frontrunner for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination until the press discovered evidence of an extramarital affair, and he did not win the nomination. The primaries give the voting public the opportunity to learn all details of a candidate's life before making a choice, meaning that they can chose the most viable candidate for the general election. The primaries are also an opportunity for the party to decide on its ideological standing as there will often be competing factions as there was in 2016 between the more progressive Sanders and moderate Clinton. However, media scrutiny also damages the process as misleading media narratives can become the focus of the primaries, giving way to style over substance. In 2016 the media focused on Trump’s calling Ted Cruz ‘lyin Ted’ rather than scrutinizing his policies. Many media outlets also helped to fuel the ‘Bernie/ Hillary’ divide within the Democratic party but when it came to the actual general election only 12% of voters who had supported Sanders decided to vote for Trump rather than Hillary, showing this device may not have been as significant as the media propagated. Therefore whilst the media can provide useful scrutiny for the elections it has become focused on the ‘horse race’, to the extent that the head of CNN said politics should be ‘treated like a sport’ leading to personal feuds taking precedence over policy. Winners become beholden to media narratives rather than their own agendas, leaving voters feeling betrayed by their candidates, thus increasing anti elitist feeling in the US public that erodes trust in institutions.In conclusion the process is deeply flawed as party elites still play a significant role through both the invisible primaries and superdelegates harming the democratic nature of the process. Increased media scrutiny causes debates be centred around personality rather policy. Also the staggered primaries system means that not all states are equally represented giving undue influence to certain states, meaning that process is overall deeply flawed.