They even advise increasing the number of superdelegates, who played a big role in selecting Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party nominee for President in the 2016 election. Superdelegates are not required to vote in accordance with the primary vote outcome in their states and they are usually chosen from the ranks of the Deep Party Apparatchiks. This is a most undemocratic method for choosing a party nominee for President or any other elected office, but democracy is another of many words robbed of meaning by those elitists who hunger for power and have long grown accustomed to exercising it without challenge. There was a backlash among Democrat voters to the role of superdelegates in the Clinton nomination that led to a cutback in the present power of superdelegates in the party. An alternative suggested in the article is having a convention to choose a small number of candidates to put before the primary voters. Still another is to have the party's Congress members put out a recommended slate of candidates, rather as the teachers unions do in public school board elections.
Why does The Economist think that many candidates are a problem? Because:
"the system has thrown up too many candidates for voters to evaluate. It rewards name recognition and social-media prowess, and asks activists to make decisions about people about whom they know little."These are valid concerns. However, there are so many loony birds among the candidates in this case that it is really easy to winnow out almost all of the candidates. No, I can make a much stronger statement than that. It is really easy to eliminate all of the Democrat candidates from any extensive evaluation because they are all nuts, power-hungry, and suffer from a huge delusion that they have the intellectual power to evaluate the needs of all Americans in their lives and to make decisions about people whom they know little.
If the people of the United States are unable to properly evaluate 25 candidates for the presidency, then how can one entertain a faith that any one of those candidates even has the capability of evaluating the real needs of 329 million individual Americans? How can anyone maintain the delusion that any candidate can know enough about 329 million Americans to then micromanage their lives as the federal government already largely tries to do and the Democrat Party is united in wanting to do on a much grander scale?
We have a federal government that is four times the size it ought to be. It is constantly violating the many and broad rights of the individual to life and self-ownership, liberty, to earn a living, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It is constantly deciding who will be given a benefit and who will be deprived under force in order that the politicians can steal what they need to give that benefit. Republicans have no business exercising these powers and Democrats have even less business doing so because they are even more blind to their unrealistic assumptions about their mental capabilities.