[zerosix]

I'm sorry but you are incorrect (on public financing forcing primaries open.)

It is always up to the states to determine their own election rules and regulations.

Some time ago, liberals began claiming that what "we" needed was to "open primaries" that way, one could merely vote in whichever party's primary you wanted without having to do something "so partisan and exclusionary as having a closed primary election."

They even went so far as to hold "non-partisan" local elections even for Mayor, etc.

The only people that this ever helps are liberals, whether Democrat or Republicans!

Those 27 states with open primaries can vote at anytime to close their primaries but my thinking is that as many of those states are ruled by liberals, it won't happen.

I'm all for deciding whom to choose as a Presidential candidate by holding the first primaries only in closed primary states, that way we don't wind up with John McCain, Mitt Romney or Bob Dole!

[Kenny Bunk]

states determine their own election rules and regulations.

Quite true. And you'll find among those regulations, those governing the use of public financing.

[octex]

I’m all for deciding whom to choose as a Presidential candidate by holding the first primaries only in closed primary states, that way we don’t wind up with John McCain, Mitt Romney or Bob Dole!
********************************
That’s really not a bad idea! I like it! Really tired of the old caucus system in Iowa and then the fool voters in VT being the first two States that set the tone.

[matthew fuller]

"I'm all for deciding whom to choose as a Presidential candidate by holding the first primaries only in closed primary states, that way we don't wind up with John McCain, Mitt Romney or Bob Dole! "

That sounds like a much better process- I would also prefer that the first primaries went to the reddest (last election) closed primary states.