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

[muon2]

Open primary. Texas doesn't have party registration, which is nice because party registration is silly and it shouldn't be the state government's job to ensure party loyalty or the ideological purity of primary voters.

Well put. If the state is paying for the primary, I don't see why the state should try to enforce the desires of a party to have only certain voters. If the party wants to pay, then they can set up a pre-registration system for their party. IL uses an open party primary for almost all races, but township party organizations may hold closed caucuses to nominate their slates for township officers.

[muon2]

1. I don't have much preference between a primary or a caucus; I could live with either one.  The one thing I will say is that primaries seem to work better and easier than caucuses.  I would prefer a semi-closed primary where Independents can vote, but if my state was open primary (which my RL state is), then I would not try to challenge it. 

2. I would probably choose a system with a slate of winner-take-all delegates, plus a slate of proportional delegates allocated by congressional or legislative districts.

3. The threshold for viability would probably be 10 or 20 percent, 25 at the most.

4. I would probably provide for a small number of superdelegates/unpledged delegates.

5. I would want to have it early in the schedule, after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and possibly after Florida.  Super Tuesday would be the latest.

What is a semi-closed primary and how does it work? I'm guessing that independents would be able to vote in partisan primary. But how far back can a person have voted in a different party's primary and be independent?

If it's just about registration and declaring oneself independent, how long before the primary is the deadline to declare? One issue with the presidential primaries is that each week may have candidates drop out. When that happens, partisans for a dropped out candidate may dislike the remaining leader and want to be independent when their state holds its primary.

[muon2]

1. I don't have much preference between a primary or a caucus; I could live with either one.  The one thing I will say is that primaries seem to work better and easier than caucuses.  I would prefer a semi-closed primary where Independents can vote, but if my state was open primary (which my RL state is), then I would not try to challenge it. 

2. I would probably choose a system with a slate of winner-take-all delegates, plus a slate of proportional delegates allocated by congressional or legislative districts.

3. The threshold for viability would probably be 10 or 20 percent, 25 at the most.

4. I would probably provide for a small number of superdelegates/unpledged delegates.

5. I would want to have it early in the schedule, after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and possibly after Florida.  Super Tuesday would be the latest.

What is a semi-closed primary and how does it work? I'm guessing that independents would be able to vote in partisan primary. But how far back can a person have voted in a different party's primary and be independent?

If it's just about registration and declaring oneself independent, how long before the primary is the deadline to declare? One issue with the presidential primaries is that each week may have candidates drop out. When that happens, partisans for a dropped out candidate may dislike the remaining leader and want to be independent when their state holds its primary.

A semi-closed primary is where voters register with a party and can only vote in that party's primary.  However, Independents can vote in whatever primary they choose.  The news media refers to this as an "open primary," which is incorrect.  Many states automatically register Independents with the party they choose, which I oppose.

As for a deadline to change registration, I'd say that 30 days is sufficient.

So let me see if I understand your idea.

A person registered with a party as of 30 days before a primary may only vote in that party's primary.

A person may unregister from a party any time more than 30 days before a primary and become an independent.

An independent may choose the primary ballot for any party and remain an independent.

If that's correct, what advantage would there be for anyone who is not a party official to register with a party?

[muon2]

I like CA's jungle primary myself.

That system is horrible.

I'd choose an open primary. Brings in the most votes. The more people participate, the better it is for democracy.

Jungle primaries actually bring in more votes than traditional open primaries for races like Congress. I'm not sure that jungle primaries are applicable to delegate selection for a convention. In that case the delegates are acting as the second round of voting.

[muon2]

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

In areas dominated by one party it can do the opposite. It provides a choice in the general election when there would be no candidate or no serious candidate from the minority party.

[muon2]

Open primary. Texas doesn't have party registration, which is nice because party registration is silly and it shouldn't be the state government's job to ensure party loyalty or the ideological purity of primary voters.

Well put. If the state is paying for the primary, I don't see why the state should try to enforce the desires of a party to have only certain voters. If the party wants to pay, then they can set up a pre-registration system for their party. IL uses an open party primary for almost all races, but township party organizations may hold closed caucuses to nominate their slates for township officers.

I thought this was a loophole, where "new" parties could nominate by caucus; so each election a new party would qualify, and choose a name that had the same initialism (eg League Of Loggers, Laughing Out Loud; Loophole Of Lincolnland; would always be "LOL")

It's a throwback to pre-primary days. The townships don't elect on the same schedule as other partisan races. They wanted to keep their autonomy to elect by caucus, so they were given the ability.

There are some townships that have internal parties not connected with the major parties, and they do rotate names. That way they need neither a primary nor a caucus, but just a petition as a "new" party. Of course they are not really new parties, so that is the real loophole.

[muon2]

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.

[muon2]

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?

That depends what you mean by open primaries. IL has open primaries in the sense that any voter can show up on primary day and take either partisan ballot. It doesn't work to improve competition in Nov any more than closed primaries do.

[muon2]

5) what date?  same day as everyone else in the United States.  Preferably not more than about a month before the general election.

This would really complicate absentee and military voting. It takes about 3 weeks to certify the results of an election and if one uses the typical 5-6 week period for absentees, then It usually takes 8-10 weeks between a primary and general. If clerks really push I've seen the turnaround down to 6 weeks, but I don't know how to get to a month.