The possible impracticality of eliminating them notwithstanding, primaries present the greatest threat to our democracy by exacerbating polarization -- facilitating nomination of extreme, fringe candidates -- and then forcing the choice between two unsuitables. Further, the quasi-official role of the two main parties is itself what dooms us to the impracticality scenario. Better approach? Ranked-choice voting (more precisely, alternative or instant-runoff voting) *across* parties would probably be the best. It's least susceptible to manipulative voting, and it can accomodate a larger field of candidates. Might it be unwieldy with too many in the running? Perhaps. But then perhaps two rounds to allow an initial trim. But in either case, all such voting should be held on the same day (or within a small window) and across "parties." This will: 1) reduce the importance of party affiliation; 2) allow everyone to vote with similar information and news events; 3) eliminate the effect of the media's misleading and unfair "momentum"; 4) help surface candidates that appeal to the largest and most moderate group of Americans. One minor problem, at least with regard to presidential elections: it would likely require either a change to Article XII of the Constitution or at least a very creative SCOTUS interpretation.

I too found it odd no one brought up the DNC rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders in 2016.

You've got to love the stunning lack of self awareness which allowed one of the debaters, presumably with a straight face, to defend the (Democrats') primary system by proudly declaring that this system, which nominated both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, would never have nominated Donald Trump.

I appreciate both debater's concern with not rocking the boat too much, but I think the primary system needs serious overhaul, especially the closed primary states -where you have to declare a party to participate. (NJ is one). I agree that the current primary system is detrimental to a democracy-- requires full participation and an engaged and educated electorate to work as designed.

I wish Mr Ober would have answered the questions asked.

I listened to the whole debate, and was somewhat disappointed in its execution, but that did not surprise me given the choice of debaters to participate. Ms. Kamark and Mr. Ober may have disagreed on this question, but the fact is that BOTH are party hacks for the Democrat Party, and therefore missed a salient causal feature for WHY primaries are (in my opinion) ruining democracy. It didn't come until 27 minutes in the debate, but Ms. Kamarck finally addressed the two most significant points (as articulated by Chuck Schumer), that (1) very few people vote in primaries and (2) the people that vote in primaries tend to be the most extreme partisans, which INCENTIVES candidates to use polarizing rhetoric in their campaigns. (Ms. Kamark failed to carry this logic to its logical conclusion, which is that more extreme candidates on ballots leads to more polarizing legislatures, and that that problem is amplified in gerrymandered districts where the primary [again, decided often by 13% or less of the electorate] is more crucial in determining the final election result than is the general election.) Unfortunately, Ms. Kamarck's solution to the problem is wholly inadequate - adding a "peer review" to the process. That proposal demonstrates that she did not learn anything from the disaster that was the Hillary Clinton campaign. The reason that Bernie supporters sat on their hands in 2016 was that they felt the nomination process was rigged in a way that disadvantaged their preferred candidate. Ms. Kamarck's solution is to rig the process further, WIDENING the gap between the party elites and the general electorate. In an era where the people feel increasingly disconnected from their supposed representatives, this "solution" would absolutely make the problem worse, not better. The real problem is BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties have too much power, and they rig the election system to maintain the Duopolistic power structure. As long as Democrats and Republicans continue to conspire to shut out other voices, the process will remain as undemocratic as it has been for the last 25 years or so. We need to take a lesson from Alaska - open up primaries to all voters (not just registered party members), and enact Ranked Choice Voting - forcing candidates to try to appeal pragmatically to the entire electorate and not just bombastically to their extreme base. But I wouldn't expect party hacks like Ms. Kamarck and Mr. Ober, who operate under the fallacy that "What's good for my party is by definition good for the country", to subscribe to a system that would strengthen the election process by weakening their own party. Mr. Donvan, I wish you had included Nick Troiano in your debate, as an example of someone who believes that primaries are ruining democracy precisely because he believes that the two-party system itself is ruining democracy.