> Does anyone know why the primaries in the US are the weird way they are?
>
> Here in Oregon, primaries are still roughly a month away. For folks here and in states with similar predicaments, this situation makes our votes worthless. If one is going to vote for either of the major parties, one has no choice: there's only one candidate left in each.
>
> I seem to recall from civics class that the Supreme Court hasn't liked it in the past when people's votes are devalued. Isn't this the same effect, but caused by time displacement rather than poorly drawn boundaries?
>
> Also, one doesn't have to be a member of a party to vote in that party's primary. How does this make sense? It seems more likely to me that line-crossers will be trying to sink the enemy rather than voting their consciences.
>
> gab"Feel free to answer the questions, respond to the opinions, and correct or elaborate on the facts."by
>
> Hmm... this post is oddly written. That's what I get for staying up late.

First, wierd primaries were invented by politicians. Consider the source.
Second, I question that a primary vote is a real vote, because it doesn't elect anybody. It doesn't have much effect on who runs for office, either. Call it an opinion poll and you aren't too far off the mark. People who belong to political parties seem to prefer closed primaries and people who don't (or are not strongly affiliated) prefer open primaries. Tennessee's primary came after the canditates were already chosen, so I didn't bother to cast a vote. November will be a different story.
How"Run you politicians! Run for the border!"ard