

Are you suggesting that the primary structures came into existence without the support of the parties? Or that the people can somehow rise up and rewrite election rules over the objection of party incumbents? I thought we were having a serious discussion.
US primaries aren’t like France’s two round election system, even in open primary states. California, Washington and Nebraska have a single-ballot “jungle” primary system that’s kind of close (although Nebraska is kind of special because it’s only for non-partisan state legislature races), but most open primaries still list only the candidates of one party - you can’t vote for a (D) in one race and an ® in another. US primaries are supposed to let the parties - which are essentially semi-private clubs - reach consensus on who they run against the other clubs. Having the states run those primaries was supposed to be democratizing and let more people have a voice in their representation, and maybe it even worked that way a hundred years ago. It’s the nature of people to organize themselves into cliques to consolidate and maintain power, and they’ll figure out ways to manipulate any system to do that. The fact that no one votes in primaries - regardless of their structure - makes them an easy lever of manipulation.
He made this announcement to give media something other than the “Big Beautiful Bill” to worry about this weekend.