LogFAQs > #965922414

Primary voting is almost by definition dominated by activists, who tend to be more ideological. More moderate candidates who might represent the majority of citizens in a state or a district are at a disadvantage.
. . .
As the system has evolved, however, primaries have come to be dominated by ideological partisans who please the more agenda-driven elements in either party who are the most likely to participate in primaries.
There is comparatively little incentive to reach out to voters who might fall somewhere between the two parties. And that is especially true as computer-assisted gerrymandering creates more districts that are "safe" for one party or the other in November elections.

I dunno, I feel like this isn't true at all? At least for the DNC, """"moderates"""" win constantly in all but the most progressive areas. And since when are GOP candidates elected based on their agenda? It's like the writer thinks nothing has changed since 2006.