You appear to be clueless as to how the nominating process works.
Various parties of somewhat like-minded voters choose a candidate to be put on the ballot under their party’s name. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Whigs, whatever.
Members of each party choose their own candidate. The general electorate does not. It is not the business of Democrats to vote in Republican primaries and thus help choose the Republican nominee. The general electorate votes in November, each voter getting a free choice from among those whom the various parties have put forward.
Parties are not democracies. They make their own rules. If you’re not a member of a party, you really shouldn’t get a say in who that party nominates. Would a Methodist church pick a preacher for the Baptists down the street?
Some states make it easy to become a party member or switch registrations, even up to the day of the primary, but that’s become a polluted process. And some states, strangely, allow members of one party to vote in another party’s primary, or nominating process. That is odd, but if it’s the rule, it’s the rule.
Closed primary states are merely those in which the party allows only party members to choose its nominee, which is a rather logical way to go about the process.
“Open” primaries are a bit like letting Mexican nationals vote in US elections. We all know that shouldn’t happen, right?
So maybe you should re-think the idea that there’s something wrong with letting Republican party voters chose their candidate in “closed” states. Surely you don’t favor letting Democrats cross over and influence the process.
Or do you?
The above is a long but interesting history of the Republican nomination process. Prior to 1972 the nominee was chosen by consensus by party leaders for each state. The Democrats had a similar thing, but the liberal democrats wanted the people more involved with primary voting and open caucuses and such. The Republicans followed suit.
The author of the piece (written in 2013 after the failed Romney election) argues that the way we do it now is a failed process with the long nomination process, all of the dirt being thrown that weakens the eventual nominee, the money involved (with less to spend on the national election) and the divided spirit of the GOP.
Not a proper analogy...The proper analogy would be: Can a Methodist church pick a Baptist preacher to lead it's congregation...
The question then is: who is the Methodist church or the Republican Party??? Is it the leadership or the members???
In our time the Republican Party is/are those who have the wealth to buy power...It is the globalists who own the politicians who of course create policy for the Country...It is a little kingdom of wealthy, powerful people...Most constituents including FReepers don't even know what they are up to...
We the people/constituents like to think we are actually a part of the Party and this Party works for our best interest when in fact they work for themselves...We the constituents are outsiders...
So when you say it's their Party they can do what they want, make up their own rules you are correct...
That's where the Trump 'movement' comes in...We are determined to remove those rich, powerful anti-American globalists and return the Party back to the people and OUR chosen Representatives in Congress...We are determined to eliminate their rules that only benefits those who control the 'Party'...
So while you want to go along and get along with those elites and their rules when they don't represent you at all we will carry the torch for a Candidate who can lead a change and actually represent you and us and everyone...
The Republican Party should be a Party of the people, not the rich elite...