I beg to differ: reserving seats and votes for established members who are known to be loyal to one's organization makes perfect sense for any political party.

The fact that a given party may or may not be corrupt, or unduly influenced by powerful interests, is an entirely separate consideration. For that matter, one's low opinion of the two-party system has no real bearing on the question, which is: within the current system, such as it is, what is the best and fairest way to choose the electors who will determine a party's presidential candidate?

Look: I think it would be entirely wrong for all of a party's convention delegates to be admitted on the basis of the outcomes of state primary elections, especially when the states vary so widely in how they control access to the voting booth by individuals who may or may not be actual members of the party in question.

There has been some talk about Republican citizens, and right-leaning Republican-friendly Independants, deliberately voting in Democratic primaries for the candidate they perceive as more beatable in November's general election. While it may be dificult to believe that there could ever be enough such "sabateurs" to change the result of any statewide election, there is good reason to restrict access to the primary voting booth to individuals who are registered party members, and have been so registered for longer than a day or two. for