California's rules for independent party voters is another form of suppression

Primary voting in the US is so different from Australia.

In Australia, only registered financial members of a party can vote in preselection (the primary). Becoming a voting member requires membership of exclusively one party, and is subject to party ratification, which can take months. Which seems potentiallly less democratic.

In California, the ability to register a party preference for free on primary day seems like a vast improvement. But then you have Republicans voting as spoilers in the Democratic primary because the Republicans aren't holding one this year.

Another issue in the US is that most states award no delegates for candidates who receive less than 15%. That seems like a perfect case for ranked-choice voting. Australia has had it for 100 years. A first step in that direction passed in the California state legislature (SB-212) but Gavin Newsom vetoed it.

As someone who cast my primary vote for somebody who has since withdrawn, I feel like America could and should do better.

This … doesn't match my experience. I was a NPP voter in CA; as I remember it, last year, I just walked in, the tables/lines were well labelled, and I was either asked which ballot I wanted or I simply pointed to it since they were laid out on the table. I recall no trouble voting in the Democratic primary.

(Now, that was last year. I've since left CA, as it was too expensive.)

(This release[1] does seem to corroborate what the article says, though.)

[1]: https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advi...

If you want to vote in the Democratic primary then you should join the Democratic Party. It isn’t that difficult.

Having a completely open primary is absurd and allows people to game the primary system.

A prty that anyone with any views can join isn't a real party, and having two of them doesn't help.

How do most other states do this? Do they allow voters to pick any candidate from any party for the primary?