"Best" process for finding a candidate ?

A number of candidates for the 2016 Presidential elections have now broken cover. As an outsider it seems to me that the process of selecting a candidate seems to be less than perfect:

• It takes a long time and an awful lot of money - money which could instead be spent on the campaign


• It can be damaging. The mud that gets thrown in the primaries can not only finish the careers of the unsuccessful candidates but also damage the chances of the successful one


• There are a lot of unlikely "wingnut" candidates who can have the effect of damaging the reputation of the party for which they are running


• The length of the process can, IMO, lead to election fatigue on the part of the electorate


• Whilst they're campaigning for selection, the candidates aren't devoting their full attention to the day job

I'm not sure whether there is a better process. Here in the UK there are usually very few candidates for the leadership of a political party and the campaigning is usually less damaging for the candidates - then again it's not a public election.



Is the lengthy primary process a throwback to the days when communication was much slower and there was a need for candidates to be physically present to campaign ? Could there be a shorter process and could the candidates be pre-vetted by the parties or would that undermine the democratic process to an unacceptable degree ?

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1FKYadj