This episode is brought to you by Slack. With Slack, you can bring all your people and

tools together in one place. It's your digital HQ where you can increase productivity,

enable flexibility and automate workflows. Plus, Slack is full of game-changing features,

like huddles for quick check-ins, or Slack Connect, which helps you connect with partners

inside and outside of your company. Slack. Where the future works, get started at

Slack.com slash DHQ. Welcome to the third and final installment of the

Primaries project, a series about how we nominate presidential candidates. Last week, we looked

at the real world consequences of our primary system. And the week before that, we examined

how it came to be. If you haven't heard either of those episodes yet, you may want to check

them out first. This week, we're looking at how the system could be different. Here we

go. That's Timothy Betts, a YouTuber and high school history teacher in New York, taking

us back to the summer of 1787. During a more than three month-long debate, known today

as the Constitutional Convention, the founders argued over how the United States would be governed.

They disagreed over matters of representation, including how enslaved people would be counted,

how many representatives each state would get, and some delegates refused to sign without

a bill of rights. What's needed that isn't here? Well, they requested specific protections

on individual freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, save them in the notes, and we might

add a bill of rights later. Even with all this drawn out debate and the addition of a bill

of rights, there were many things the framers left out entirely. For example, parties.

When the founders wrote the Constitution, they didn't believe in parties. That's Larry

Sabado, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. In fact, the founders,

they didn't believe in popular politics and widespread voting. And of course, since the

...