About 40 years ago, while living in New Jersey, I wrote a letter to my local newspaper bemoaning the decision of party bosses to interfere with the candidate who received the most primary votes in order to nominate a candidate with more centrist views, who would be more likely to win the general election in a presidential election year.
I hope that I have matured over the years, and I now believe that party bosses would do a better job of selecting candidates for elections. My reasoning is that mostly zealots on either side of the political spectrum vote in primaries. Thus, the candidates selected by each party are more ideological and less prone to compromise than is the general population.
If government is indeed the art of compromise, why nominate two opposing ideologues who received their nominations by promising not to compromise? Bitterness and bickering occur more often than what the majority of people desire -- a functional government that leans neither too far left nor too far right.
Party bosses might not get it right all the time, but in this political climate, I put more faith in them than I do in the zealots of each party.
Peter C. RosatoHilton Head Island