I had no idea it was that flagrantly bad. I wonder if it's that bad here in Canada.
jessica
canada doesn't have anything comparable to a primary system, or a president for that matter, so it's a meaningless comparison. our prime minister is the leader of the largest party and could in theory be removed by a confidence vote in parliament; party leaders are chosen entirely by party members, so the idea of disenfranchising independents is incoherent on it's face.
in fact, we don't even vote for parties at all. we vote for independent members of the house of commons, who then choose to align themselves in parties afterwards. or, that's the technical way it's supposed to be. you're supposed to vote for john smith as an individual. when john smith gets to ottawa he decides what party he wants to sit in after he's been elected. further, he can then switch parties on his discretion - because you voted for him, not his party. that's a little disconnected from reality, but it's the way things are supposed to be.
regarding nomination battles, half of the time there aren't even elections for nomination at all. so, one doesn't run to represent the party. the party appoints it's nominee. that might seem undemocratic, but you have to go back to the system being about the individual, not the party. the flip side is that it's very easy to get on a ballot in canada. so, we don't have nomination battles to represent the party - instead we let just about anybody run and then let the party choose which independent it wishes to back. it's hard to make a decision about which is a more democratic process. note that we don't have a two-party system, and we routinely elect at least a few independents.
in terms of voting in the actual election, all that is required is a health card - and if you don't have a health card, you truly shouldn't be voting.
so, you could argue we don't have to suppress voting because the system is closed. but, we compensate for that with a less partisan system.
you could think of it like this. in the united states, the system restricts the number of parties you can vote for but lets you pick who represents the limited number of party options. so, it restricts your options, but then gives you more control in shaping those restricted options.
in canada, the system lets you vote any which way you could want to, but then lets the parties endorse specific candidates. so, it gives you more options, and then lets the parties decide which options they want to back; in canada you may have less control in shaping the parties, but you also have more (viable) options to choose from.
it's pros and cons, and a lot of subjectivity. direct comparisons are perilous.