>Actually, no, Bill, it's the result of a successful civil rights movement,
>a result that was hard fought for with the lives of countless southern
>blacks who died in the swamps of Mississippi and other places to
>accomplish.
That makes no sense to me. One of the problems with the system of primaries is that voters must register as supporters of a particular party, in order to be eligible to cast a vote in these primaries. Thus negating the secret ballot. This is bad enough for members of the working class, who face retaliation if they dare to declare themselves a supporter of a different party from their employer. (But face the prospect of not having a real choice at the election unless they do abandon their right to a secret ballot.)
I can't imagine how it could be in the interests of "countless southern blacks" to support a system where they have to out themselves as supporters of a particular political party in order to ensure that such a political party can even get on the ballot.
It is so wildly illogical, that progressive activists would favour such a system, I must assume you are making it up.
>For most of American history, parties were closed in many ways, including
>by excluding those of the wrong race. It took legal suits and, more
>importantly, struggles by groups like the Mississippi Freedom Democratic
>Party to establish the principle that anyone had the right to enter a
>primary to run for office. This was followed by mobilization by the
>McCarthy-Kennedy campaigns of 1968 and McGovern in 1972 to establish that
>primaries, rather than closed party caucuses, would pick the nominee for
>President.
These laws restricting ballot access in the US seem to date back to the 19th century. Open primary ballot legislation was apparently first introduced in in the 1890's. I don't know the full history, but it certainly dates back further than the 1960's or 70's, once again you are obfuscating.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas