Satisfaction Guarantee

First time here?

usewelcome15 to get 15% off

the significance of peer review and its importance to the presidential nominating process

In chapter seven of her book, Primary Politics, Dr. Elaine Kamarck makes an extended argument for
adding back peer review of the presidential nominating process. She offers ideas such as unpledged
superdelegates and mandatory pre-primary endorsements. This would effectively decrease the impact
of the state-by-state primary process, but also put the United States in line with all other western-style
democracies. When discussing Democratic superdelegates on page 198, Kamarck states In an
increasingly polarized and paranoid electorate, there is no legitimacy given to leaders of the party even
though they are elected by the same people, signaling that it is highly unlikely that the US electorate
would be in favor of strengthening the role of party elites in the presidential nominating process.
Make an argument for or against the notion of adding peer review back into the presidential nominating
process and how this could be implemented given the mood of the American electorate. Is there a need
for peer review? Explain. Consider the following questions: What problems would peer review solve (if
any)? What idealistic and practical arguments could be made against peer review? Does the invisible
primary resolve the issue of peer review or does the election of President Trump, a party outsider with
no governmental experience, negate the notion of the invisible primary? Given what you have read
regarding the party rules and platforms of both parties, how and where should peer review be
Bottom line: we would like you to write a paper making an argument for or against change in the
presidential nominating process, while answering Kamarcks argument for peer review. Take a stance
and make an energetic, unique argument focused on your position. You may choose to include some
information about South Carolinas role in the process, but your answer should be focused on the
national level and the rules governing the process of nominating presidential candidates.

Key points
This paper requires that you make an argument. An argument in this case means something new, not
something obvious, or something that our authors already told us. Please make an argument about
something you read (perhaps in Kamarck or Knotts & Ragusa) related to the paper prompt.
**You will move into A or B range if your argument is something new and risky. Something that has not
been said or written about before, that you can back up with evidence from our readings or from other