Republicans need to change their nomination procedure

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

STV is unlikely to be implemented n the United States so long as we have a strong two party system.  STV would give third parties to have a reasonable chance of developing and it would be impossible to argue that it was a good thing for primary elections yet somehow bad for the general election.  We'd need a third party at least as successful as the NDP in Canada or the LibDems in the UK before STV would be likely to develop.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I understand they are working on [this] but, due to a number of conflicting court decisions, which is strange considering the ruling in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), closing primaries may not occur until a subsequent election.

I fail to see the relevance of California Democratic Party v. Jones.  The issue of open primaries is not relevant to that case and Scalia's footnotes in his opinion indicate that he would at least give consideration to the idea that voting in an open primary is an act of association, and might even be in favor of that view.  In any case, the closed primary is for now at least, impossible to implement in at least one early primary State, South Carolina.  We have no party registration that could be used to close a primary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I fully understand the difference.  As I pointed out, there is nothing in the ruling of California Democratic Party v. Jones that touches upon open primaries. California Democratic Party v. Jones dealt narrowly with a specific topic, the blanket primary.  As such, then at most it would be of relevance to the question of whether voting in one party's presidential primary would preclude a voter being able to vote in a different party's primary for the other offices that was held on a different day but as part of the same campaign cycle.  (I.e., if despite being held on different dates, the two primaries should be considered as a single one.)

The question of whether States hold open or closed primaries is at present a political decision, not a judicial one.

However, since you brought up the case and the footnotes of California Democratic Party v. Jones discuss open primaries I looked at them to see if any tea leaves might be there to be read if a case involving the legality of the the open primary were brought.

Of course, there is a simple non-judicial way for the Republicans (or the Democrats) to close their nomination process.  Pay for it themselves instead of having the government subsidize it.  I'd be quite happy to get the government entirely out of the candidate nomination process, but I don't see either of the two major parties being willing to stop sucking from the government teat.