Good Morning, Michael re: "What would be the *actual* effect of eliminating (c) (where voting is restricted to *private* members)"
It would have an effect on the kind of candidates chosen by the party leaders, and that would affect the characteristics of the candidates.
The party leaders would choose candidates who could be relied upon to fulfill their obligation to the party for its support of their candidacy, but who would appeal to the broadest possible spectrum of voters. In other words, it would cause the party leaders to feign centrism while picking candidates that ensure the party leaders will maintain their power.
The candidates, since they cannot hope to achieve election without the financial and logistical support of the party, will accede to the party's demands. They will be the individuals most accomplished in the arts of obfuscation and deception.
Non-partisan candidates may be added to the slate, but they cannot mount a practical campaign. The effect of the parties' many years of manipulating public opinion by using the principles of behavioral science forms an impenetrable barrier to candidates who do not have party support.
While the idea of opening primary voting to the public would almost certainly reduce the power of political extremists, it does not give the people a way to determine the character and integrity of the candidates. The process does not include careful examination of the candidates - except by the self-interested party leaders. The people have no choice but to use the (mis)information disseminated by the parties and the candidates to try to choose a trustworthy individual from the slate of candidates.
Is that a reasonable assessment? Are there other possibilities? Fred ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info