What are Primary elections and why have they been criticised?

Primary elections are also criticised as they are extremely expensive and (unless organized and paid for by the public purse, which they are in some cases) take funds away from the general election campaign. Barack Obama's fundraising broke previous records for presidential primary and general campaigns, and has changed expectations for future presidential elections. The campaign avoided using public campaign funds, raising all of its money privately from individual donors. By the general election the campaign committee raised more than $650 million for itself, and coordinated with both the  (DNC) and at least 18 state-level Democratic committees to create a joint-fundraising committee to raise and split tens of millions of dollars more. Post-election fundraising continued for the separate transition administration, called the , and also the separate inaugural ceremonies and celebrations committee. On October 19, 2008, Obama's campaign announced a record fundraising total of $150 million for September 2008. This exceeded the campaign's single-month record ($66 million) for August 2008.

Again Primary elections are criticised as they encourage internal party strife instead of fostering an environment of negotiation, consultation, and compromise at a time when efforts need to be focused on defeating external challengers, not internal ones.

Another reason Primary elections are criticised are because they are seen to take the decision away from the most experienced, the office holders, and party leadership. Instead, ordinary party members with little or no experience of running for or holding public office get to decide.

Finally Primary elections weaken the party structures by putting the focus on individual candidates rather than on the party manifesto or policies. Usually Primary elections promote the candidate running so much in the media that it is often forgotten the policies that the candidate is actually running for.