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

[Figueira]

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.

Wouldn't open primaries accomplish the same thing, though?