They don't have to participate in state-run primary elections, but if they choose to, they are not allowed to commit election fraud. Primary elections are still elections.
Of course, they don't have to provide equitable treatment to candidates in other ways.
Sure, the party could opt to not even run a primary process I think (like most parties do when they have an incumbent in office). But they do have to at least appear in these run-offs to be fair and following the process they establish and be transparent to the degree possible.
That wouldn't stop them from being elections, but primaries are public affairs carried out by the State. (Caucuses are more like you describe, but even they often have state involvement.)
> caucuses in US primaries
Caucuses are not in primaries, they are an alternative to them.
Some states they do. In my state, the Democrats hold caucuses instead of primaries (even though the state runs primaries anyway—weird story), and I think at their own expense. Running an election is a pretty big operation (you need to register voters, check that they're eligible, set up and staff either polling places or mail-in sites, and so on. The state already has most of that infrastructure, and it seems wasteful to duplicate it. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if some (or all) primary states allow third parties to register to have their primaries run as well.
I guess the gist of it is there's a difference between a Party's Primary election process and a National or State election. The Party is treated like a private club that can do whatever it wants in its Primars to select its candidate for the general election.
The primaries can just be moved. The democratic and republican party aren't government institutions written into the constitution, they're just associations of politicians.
They won't flip parties and no incumbent is ever at serious risk of a primary challenge. You can call it transparent I guess but it's also a foregone conclusion.
> This makes sense. Primaries are internal party business. It's totally up to them to decide how they select their candidates.
New York is the only state which conducts primaries this way.
> The general elections are where the citizens get their say.
No, because general elections are uncontested (due to gentleman's agreements between the two parties not to run candidates in each others' districts, and laws making it infeasible for third parties to do anything but cross-endorse the major parties).
But they don't, especially on the local and state level. They may fund their favorites but outright socialists and communists can and do run in the Democratic primaries, to say nothing of progressives and Greens. And if I was in a district that had closed primaries where one party routinely wins, I would definitely register for that party. It doesn't mean anything.
That's fine but what does it say about their constituents? First it's a handful voting for each in their respective primaries; second a substantial number of eligible voters who do not care enough to participate in that primary. And then more than half of the eligible voters who don't care enough to participate in the general election. So why disable the ability of those willing to participate to re-elect the person they want?
Of course, they don't have to provide equitable treatment to candidates in other ways.
reply