I don't agree that candidates should get drafted - that is grossly undemocratic.
Yes, closed primaries are a must (though that should extend beyond simply Presidential to all partisan offices). We’ve had problems in my state (TN) with Democrats voting in the open primaries and no runoffs (hence, we’re often saddled with the most left-leaning RINO carrying races with pluralities).
Yet one more problem is having non-Republican (Presidentially) states deciding early on whom the party nominees should be whittled down to. New Hampshire ceased to be a GOP state after 1988, it has voted exactly one time for a GOP Presidential candidate (in 2000, and that only because Ralph Nader took enough votes from Gore). Iowa as well, has also voted just once (2004, flipping with NH) since after 1984. Although both states can technically claim to be “competitive”, in reality, they’re generally reliably Democrat.
It would be as ridiculous for, say, Utah or Oklahoma determining the Democrat nominee. States that lean the most one way or the other should have more of a say in the selection. South Carolina has more credibility for the GOP, but it alone should not be a deciding factor as an early state.
To explain what I mean by drafting a candidate, we would hold a pre-convention of sorts where the potential applicants are thoroughly vetted. Anyone attending could potentially submit a name. Applicants appear and can be thoroughly questioned about their records and anything applicable to them. At that point, they can be whittled down to, say, 5 candidates (I’m throwing out a number, it could be more, could be less).
From there, those pre-approved candidates can then proceed with the actual primary process.
I’ll add as well that the primaries themselves have moved too far back. I think that primaries should begin in the Spring (not the Winter) and carry through the Summer. States should rotate their primaries/caucii (if IA & NH don’t like it, tough - it’s not designated in the Constitution that they get to pick the nominees, after all).
To address your point about the drafting issue being “grossly undemocratic”, I will say this: Given the importance of the office of Presidency, it is not one to be taken lightly or one that should continue to be selected via the current corrupted process. It should be done under a more “exclusive” environment with an engaged electorate (not the LIV’s) and thoroughly vetted candidates. The President himself is not elected democratically as it is (with the Electoral College being the method).
I’d also go so far as to say that we probably should change the method to per Congressional District. It is outrageous that in some states where you have a single major urban area (or one urban county) can outvote the preference of the vast overwhelming majority of a given state (especially when said counties are cesspools of electoral fraud).