If you were in charge of a State GOP, what sort of primary system is best?

[Mr. Morden]

The problem with jungle primaries is that it pushes the real action of the election to a low-turnout primary.

I'd say just switch to IRV then.  Do away with party nominations completely, and just have every candidate compete together in a single IRV election.  No primaries.

Or at least, that could work for statewide offices.  For the presidency, it would be unworkable, unless you also junk the electoral college.

[Mr. Morden]

I like CA's jungle primary myself.

Top two primaries are unfair, undemocratic, and unconstitutional because they unfairly limit voters' choices and discriminate against political minorities (Republicans in Safe D districts and vice-versa).  I'm surprised nobody has sued under the VRA to overturn it.

Explain how they limit voters' choices and discriminate against political minorities.

[Mr. Morden]

I like CA's jungle primary myself.

Top two primaries are unfair, undemocratic, and unconstitutional because they unfairly limit voters' choices and discriminate against political minorities (Republicans in Safe D districts and vice-versa).  I'm surprised nobody has sued under the VRA to overturn it.

Explain how they limit voters' choices and discriminate against political minorities.

In safe districts and states, both general election candidates are from the same party, meaning that minority parties are disenfranchised.  If you live in Los Angeles and San Francisco and you're a Republican, you general election ballot will most likely be all Democrats; there are rural parts of California where the opposite happens and both general election candidates are Republicans.  It basically sends the message that member of minority parties don't deserve to have a candidate that represents them, simply because they're a minority.

The problem is that in safe districts the minority party is far more likely to have no candidate from their party. That's real disenfranchisement. In a top-two system their vote matters and they can select the candidate who better represents them.

Yep.  With Top Two, I think it's a mistake to even call the first round a "primary".  It's just round one of the election.  So candidates from your party are represented in round 1 of the election.  If your favored candidate doesn't make it to round two, I'm not sure how that's any more disenfranchising than your favored candidate losing with the current system.

[Mr. Morden]

I suppose I could see an argument against such a system, though, in that vote splitting could lead to a top two who don't actually get very much of the vote, and who might not be part of the top two absent vote splitting.

Right.  That's definitely a problem with run-offs, which is why IRV is better.  Though with many candidates and no party nomination, I guess that would be a lot of candidates to rank.