Comment Re:The problem with protests. (Score 1) 584
Closed primaries disallow the general public from choosing a candidate, and only registered party members are permitted to vote. If the party wants a certain candidate to gain ground, but feel the general public will not vote in their favor, they have a closed primary vote.
The flip side of this is poisoning the well. The opposition party votes in an open primary to attempt manipulating a candidate's popularity. They attempt to create false competition, or get a less-than-favorable candidate elected. This trick can also be used by the party itself if an unpopular party choice is winning.
Then there's the actual candidates themselves. Any real choice of candidates has been far removed for a while. The only candidates who end up in a national primary are ones who've already committed to the party's views and demonstrated their willingness to "play the game." Anyone with a real chance of winning with moderate party views or won't cooperate with lobbyists were pruned out of the process on the local/state level. Candidates like Paul or Huntsman aren't seriously considered contenders (reflected by both the parties and the media).
So no, those primaries are not the bastions of democracy you think they are. I would say, in my region, the highest level of government I see is probably sparsely at the County-level election, but mostly the town/city level. Admittedly, I'm from a fairly skewed state for this (Illinois), so I'm probably a bit more pessimistic than most. It's possible other regions might get more honest elections up to the state level.
If you ever want a real sobering realization on the subject, befriend someone in your state's official party committees. They can tell you, to a much more detailed extent, the games that are played with elections to ensure certain candidates never get anywhere, while others get groomed for higher offices.