Are primaries democratic? Should they be?

[European Lefty]

1) Caucuses aren't, clearly, but those states could always switch to primaries
2/3) If all states vote at the same time, that wouldn't bea problem. It would require a change in the law but that shouldn't cause too many problems.
4) That one's trickier. You would have to reform it to completely remove deleates from the equation and make national popular vote the sole determiner, but I don't know how you would do that.
5) All primaries shoud be open to get the best expression of the people's will
6) There really isn't a lot anyone can do about that beyond what is generally being done to improve political engagement.
7) Party conventions should be open only party members and decide things like policy, basic direction and party rules. The process of electing a president ought to be for everybody affected.

One thing I will say is: what's the alternative? In the UK party members and party members only select the candidates. My home village is in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency, and whoever the Conservative select always wins by a very wide margin. Therefore, the only people who have any meaningful say over who the MP is are members of the local Conservative Party. Under an open primary, everyone in the constituency would at least get a say on who the MP is, even if there was nothing they could do about the party. Primaries might not be perfect but they're better than the alternative.

[European Lefty]

1) Caucuses aren't, clearly, but those states could always switch to primaries
2/3) If all states vote at the same time, that wouldn't bea problem. It would require a change in the law but that shouldn't cause too many problems.
4) That one's trickier. You would have to reform it to completely remove deleates from the equation and make national popular vote the sole determiner, but I don't know how you would do that.
5) All primaries shoud be open to get the best expression of the people's will
6) There really isn't a lot anyone can do about that beyond what is generally being done to improve political engagement.
7) Party conventions should be open only party members and decide things like policy, basic direction and party rules. The process of electing a president ought to be for everybody affected.

One thing I will say is: what's the alternative? In the UK party members and party members only select the candidates. My home village is in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency, and whoever the Conservative select always wins by a very wide margin. Therefore, the only people who have any meaningful say over who the MP is are members of the local Conservative Party. Under an open primary, everyone in the constituency would at least get a say on who the MP is, even if there was nothing they could do about the party. Primaries might not be perfect but they're better than the alternative.

Do you mean that everybody should get to vote in every primary? That's kind of what I don't get about open primaries. Why does somebody with no commitment to the party deserve a binding vote on who the party is committed to run in the fall?

If you have people who aren't Democrats running for the Democrat nomination, why not? I don't imagine many people vote in the opposite party's primary and it does allow everyobody a say. That way you're more likely to end up with a president people actually like because everybody has had a chance to select the best candidate from either side. And for legislative elections it also means that people in the Bronx who aren't registered Democrats or people in Wyoming who aren't registered Republicans get some say over who their representative is whichever level th elections is for, which wouldn't happen without a primary.