why don't the US primaries system get challenged in court?

Some more questions while I watch your ever more bizarre political process play out.
The Iowa caucus system as I understand it requires people to be physically present for several hours. Other states primaries are a simple ballot. Surely this skews the demographics? Is there any way people who can’t get time off work can vote in the Iowa caucus? If not can’t they file a law suit against the caucus system claiming they are being denied their chance to vote?

Like wise can’t people in the states whose primaries are last file legal challenges because effectively their vote in the primaries are almost worthless? It just seems blatantly obvious to me that your vote in a primary is worth more or less depending on which state you live in. How is that reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause and “one man, one vote” ?

I just can’t see how the current primary system is in any way an accurate indication of who the US population really wants as the parties nominees.

Primaries exist to choose the representatives for the individual parties. Although they are run under normal state election laws, they are actually private affairs belonging to the parties. (Caucuses even more so.) You don’t have standing to sue any more than you have standing to sue the National Bowling Association (made up name) for not giving you a chance to choose who’s in its Hall of Fame. Their club, their rules.

Yes, it’s insane. No, no other country would do anything like this. American exceptionalism at its finest.

Except you can’t make a club any more that excludes black people or women. I would have thought there was a strong argument to be made that the rules should offer everyone equal chances to participate. It’s never been challenged in court?

Well, yes, you can. I don’t know if it would apply to a political party, but private clubs do actually have a first amendment right to choose their membership without interference. That’s why country clubs can ban women from membership, etc.

Members of a political party have never been classed as a protected minority.

Hmm, ok pretty sure in Australia thats not legal. But anyway I assume you can’t ban black people or women from joining a political party, so it would seem there would be a constitutional argument that some primaries systems are discriminatory?

As kunilou asked, who are the members of the protected minority that are being discriminated against? People who work days don’t count. That’s why voting has long hours, to accommodate them.

The primaries are not elections for government officials. They are elections for nominally private organizations - political parties - to choose who the party will back in the actual election. If Bernie Sanders loses the Democratic primary, he can still run for president, and people can still vote for him. But the Democrat party apparatus would not support him.

The “clubs” – Democrat and Republican parties – ARE open to everyone who wants to declare him/herself a member.

Think of them as sports teams. Each team gets to pick its own leader.

I thought with the Iowa caucuses you had to be there for a significant amount of time? Its not just turn up, vote and leave. Well I guess New Jerseyites are not a protected minority but being last their primary vote ain’t worth jack shit. Do they even bother to hold it if the other candidates have already dropped out?

OK I take your word for it that it can’t be challenged in court, but you won’t ever get me to admit that its not a grossly unfair and discriminatory system. Have any mainstream candidates supported reform of the primary system?

According the the news, the caucuses start at 7PM. Most folks are off work by then.

The primary system *is *the reform. Delegates used to be named and controlled by state party bosses. This system is [insert hyperbolic adjective here] more open and fair than the old one. Many people in the country would argue that it is [insert hyperbolic adjective here] much too open, because in many states you don’t even have to be registered for a party to vote in its primary. And registration can be changed any time you want, because it’s legally meaningless.

That depends on the state - in some places there is a deadline for changing your registration. For example, in New York if you want to change your party registration before the April 19, 2016 primary you have to do it before March 30th, and New York has closed primaries.

Yes, basically anytime up to the legal deadline, but with no limit over larger periods of time.

Doesn’t mean it can’t be reformed again. The reforms you are talking about date from 1910-1930 depending on the state. Things have changed a bit since then.

I thought some states had “sore loser” laws - if you get defeated in a primary, you can’t have your name on the ballot for the general, even as an independent.

People who live in California (which has a late primary) aren’t a protected class. People who are not members of a party often can’t vote in a primary. They aren’t a protected class either.

BTW political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution because they didn’t exist yet.
Anyone who wants to start a party and get on ballots in all 50 states is allowed to do so, if he or she follows the rules. There are a lot more than 2 names on the presidential ballot.
BTW I think there are some stages in Iowa beyond the caucus. They get so much press because they are the first, and only because Jimmy Carter made a name for himself by putting effort there when everyone else ignored it. When I was growing up New Hampshire was the big first news.

Other countries let a party’s candidates get selected by people who are not members of the party? Surely that’s not what you meant to say.

There is no Constitutional right to vote for President in the United States.

Some states allow you to vote in the other parties primary. I don’t think any let you vote in both though.