Yes, because you’re fixating on presidential primaries, rather than primaries for state offices and Congress. States most certainly exercise the power to require parties to nominate by primary for state offices and Congress, by denying them ballot access if they do otherwise.
What states do that?
Almost all of them. To quote from the election statutes of Illinois (my emphasis):
That was the kind of primary the OP discussed.
You call it ‘fixating,’ I call it ‘staying on topic.’
Not that the topic of a thread can’t wander. But just because you’re wandering, doesn’t mean you can expect others to wander in the same direction.
I notice that the Illinois statute you cite, Freddy, applies to “delegates and alternate delegates to national nominating conventions by all political parties.”
It may be the law of the state of Illinois, but I’d like to see how they’d enforce it, if one of the major parties opted to choose its delegates by caucus or at a state convention.
Fail to allow the person selected that way on the ballot?
I agree; in the specific case of delegates to a presidential nominating convention, such a law is unenforceable, because the national party convention is the final authority on seating delegates. But the law is easily enforceable in all other cases–the state, after all, is the final authority in placing names on the November ballot.
They could, in theory. In practice, the publicity would be so fast, so strong, and so negative that they’d change their tune in a heartbeat.
And tonight’s SC primary adds to my point. Republicans in a Republican primary preferred Huckabee, but independents who could give two shits about the Republican party puts McCain over the top.
Why is this allowed?
Can I get a link for this please?
Because Moderates (and I believe most people deep down really are this) would like to be able to choose from “moderate” candidates rather than from “standard bearers”. We don’t want to have to “hold our nose” and pick from the lesser of two extremes.
No one party has a monopoly on truth and sensibility.
As a New Yorker (and Independent) I feel disenfranchised because I have to sit back and choose from the two that hard-core party members choose. This is bullshit.
If most people were moderates who felt disenfranchised by the two major parties, there would be a third party kicking butt on the Dems and Pubs. There is not.
You have the Libertarians, the Greens, the Reform, the Consitutional Law, the Prohibition, the Socialist, the Communist, the Taxpayers Parties, etc. How are you disenfranchised? They have no chance of winning, you say? That doesn’t disenfranchise you; that just means that your guy lost. (Pretty badly)
No, but you want to choose which Republican or which Democrat appears on the November ballot. If you want that, you need to join up.
NO, you don’t, and you shouldn’t, and thankfully, states with open primaries make it that way. 
I think Michigan is just unique. When I registered to vote here, I was not asked (and have not been asked) whether I am democrat or republican.
- Honesty.
Sorry I couldn’t post back last night.
Look, being realistic, there are good points to both major parties and some crappy ones too (IMHO). The correct blend of attributes for me doesn’t exist in any one party’s platform (3rd parties included).
I would prefer that I had a choice of people closest to my perfect blend. I am denied this because I won’t buy into one party’s platform hook-line-and-sinker.
If primaries were truly open in all states I wouldn’t be surprised if actual party enrollments dropped somewhat; reason being that some probably felt compelled to join one of the two just so they could have say in one of the candidates being nominated.
So why not dispense with primaries altogether, and just have a big ol’ general election with 15 or 20 candidates? That is whole purpose of primaries; to weed through all the pretenders and decide which will represent the party. If everybody gets to vote on all the candidates, why bother?
I agree with you - I’d rather it be this way, I’d have a much better chance of being able to pick from the less extreme candidates of either major party.