In that scenario, I would think the choice of this voter would be 2, with the expectation that the general will be between 1 and 2, and that 2 will pull in some Republican support.
If Candidate 2’s 40% poll numbers are too high for this thought-experiment, adjust the numbers down appropriately 
Even if the primary continued to be restricted to extremists, it’d still be extremists from both sides, which should average out to moderates (or at least, more moderate than the usual electorate).
Given that in our political system there are two extremes, and that two candidates get chosen, I don’t think the result will be a set of moderate candidates.
Anyhow, Stalin + Hitler != 2 Chamberlins.
Ok, folks, I didn’t mean to leave this thread hanging. Meatspace kept me busy yesterday.
I hate to go all Dr. Phil on you but he has a point when he say the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. My contention is that this change would make campaigns worst appealing to more extremism as the candidates hammer home their credentials. This would drown out any moderating voices. This will further alien moderates. Again the only winners I see in this are media and ad companies and possibly incumbents.
Not that this is actual evidence, but you have to consider that both major parties oppose the open primary. Why would they take that position? For that point alone it almost merits support just to spite the parties. Just sayin.
Right, this is what’s happening now, more or less.
Again, we are in agreement.
So why is there no one apppealing to them now? Nothing about the closed primary is restriciting a moderating voice from entering the race tomorrow. I’ll tell you why, they know moderates an independents aren’t listening.
Nothing about the open primary changes this, it only increases the chances for shenanigans and vote splitting. Thinking on it, I’d place my money or more extremist being elected rather than the reverse.
I’m not sure why you think this would be the case. Why would candidates try to appeal to the extremes? They presumably already have those votes. I think it will be more like a general election where the candidates try to appeal to the middle.
But unlike in a general election where a centrist third-party candidate has minimal chance of winning the most votes, in this sort of primary the centrist third-party candidate only needs to come in second. In a state like California where non-affiliated voters outnumber Democrats and Republicans separately, this is a viable option if the major parties only court their extremes.
Because they’re not voting now. I keep hearing, well wishful thinking that says this will make a difference, but not one shred of evidence to say this is the case. Does anyone have any evidence that turn out is better in open primaries? Maybe polls indicating I don’t know, greater interests amongst independents in open primaries. Right this minute there is nothing keeping moderates and independents from voting for a candidate Tuesday other than lack of interest. Had they been interested, California allows voters to register for a party as little as 2 weeks before the election. Cite. There is nothing at all preventing a moderate voice from emerging other than the fact there is no one to speak to.
Nothing except that the Republican party has been losing members, and I suspect these members are more moderate. They lost me 8 years ago. There aren’t many moderates left and the independents can’t vote in the Republican primary, so of course they aren’t listening - they aren’t being addressed.
I’d claim that California Dems nominate more moderate people, but those who think Nancy Pelosi is the Communist spawn of Satan may differ.
I did this, because I was so pissed off at Shrub that I couldn’t stand being a registered Republican any more. It is not hard to do but how you go about doing it is not obvious. Sure, any Doper sufficiently motivated and with five minutes on Google can figure it out, but you are not going to get a lot of people doing it for a single election, certainly not enough for a candidate to moderate a position. It is hard enough to get registered voters to vote period, and how to do that is very clear.
I think that remains to be seen. The current system does nothing to encourage unaffiliated voters to vote. Sure, they can vote in the Democratic primary, or even the Republican if they’re willing to put a R next to their name, but when there’s few of them voting, the candidates have little incentive to moderate their opinions. It’s a vicious cycle.
And there’s still the effect of the moderates being split between the two separate primaries.
Perhaps they won’t vote in the proposed system, but then the results will be the same as the current system. And if more unaffiliated voters do start voting in the proposed system, it is reasonable to expect that more moderates voting will moderate the results of the system.
The proposed system will not cost the state any differently than the current primary system, there’s no reason to expect the results to be worse, and there is a possibility of a moderating influence on the results.
What I am not interested in is being forced to join a club in order to vote in a state-run election. The very concept is ridiculous.