Republicans need to change their nomination procedure

[Stranger in a strange land]

the Republican primary process is designed to produce a nominee as quickly as possible. Hence the preponderence of statewide winner-take-all primaries and party-insider-only caucuses. McCain was able to do what he did this year because of a crowded primary field, and because unlike in previous years, no establishment candidate had emerged. Forcing states to take the measures you describe would violate the Republicans' professed belief in states' rights. This is why many Republican primaries continue to use WTA while the Democrats have mandated PR.

The purpose of this system is to avoid a deadlocked convention, prevent long, expensive primary fights, and give the party's nominee plenty of time to raise funds for the fall campaign.

The Democrats have recognized the problem with such 'raidable' primaries, the Republicans should wake up to the problems, and close the primaries.

a fair number of Democratic primaries are open, including the pivotal New Hampshire Primary. Quite a few Republican primaries are already closed.

[Stranger in a strange land]

If the Republicans want to avoid anoter McCain disaster, they need to modify their rules for primaries.

First, the winner take all system allowed on candidate with a minority of the total vote, and a very narrow plurality to take everything.

Second, McCain was able to win narrow pluralities in early primary states courtesy of the votes of non-Republicans in the Republican primaries.  The Democrats have recognized the problem with such 'raidable' primaries, the Republicans should wake up to the problems, and close the primaries.

Assuming that they are closable.  In South Carolina, the Republicans have no choice but to have an open primary since there is no party registration here.

likewise, Minnesota and a few other states have same-day walk-in voter registration, so a voter could presumably show up to whichever primary he wished to vote in.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Not all of the Democrats primaries were closed either. Obama won many states thanks to independent support that Clinton didn't get. I think the GOP's system is better than the Democrats because unlike in the Dems, one can't just win all the small caucus states and stay close in the big states and siphon off delegates. Hillary won most of the big states and the popular vote, but lost the nomination because Obama was able to fund a caucus game more efficiently.

Hillary almost certainly did not win the popular vote in primaries and caucuses where she faced Obama. Note that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, and agreed not to spend any money or campaign in Florida, in compliance with party rules. Also, some caucuses, such as Iowa, do not release PV numbers. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

I disagree, the winner take all system is better, the Dems should change there procedure so Hillary could win.

LOL

anyway, both systems have their flaws, but Proportional Representation is much fairer than giving all of a state's delegates to a candidate who gets 32% of the vote.