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
