As Expected - the Corrupt Never Fail to Cheat

Before the top two primary system the general had several choices. The Dem nominee, the Rep nominee, the nominee from several small parties, a couple independents, and a write-in. 

Now the general is restricted to only two candidates. I see that as fewer choices. 

You might be unfamiliar with how the system works as it is currently only in California and Washington. 

The primary will have several people running. The two people that get the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general. 

The general will always only have two candidates. They might be from the same party. 

Well, the chance of a third party candidate getting elected these days is about 0.00003, so having more than two candidates merely gives you the opportunity to waste your vote. In a polarized society dominated by party politics, tribalism is all.

I didn't realize that this was one primary to select two nominees, not one of two primaries, one for each party. It does make sense in any state, blue or red, that's dominated by one party. An election in November will be more meaningful if it isn't a foregone conclusion, which in many states it is when it's Democrat vs. Republican.

In a polarized state, red or blue, the real contest might be between a far-right and a centrist, or a far-left and a moderate. This primary system simply moves that fight from the primary season to the actual election. I like it. There's so little point in running a Dem vs Rep election in California, Oklahoma, Washington, Arkansas, etc. Enough people will vote party-line that the persons running won't even matter--just the label they're wearing.

I would prefer that the government stop running primaries all together.

The Government should just hold a general election listing all candidates that qualify.

The parties should start funding their own nominating process instead of relying on the taxpayers. 

Well, that's the French way. There are always dozens of candidates on the ballots. While they do have pretty much the same two major party polarization as we do, evidently, third-party candidates can and do win sometimes. I think the French enjoy the chaos.

Not entirely true for local elections. Depending on the State, County or City a Democratic Socialist, Libertarian, or independent has a chance at winning. 

Especially when/if the major parties nominate someone that some party voters don't like. 

I think that's why the Dem Party favors it. They get to have their establishment candidate and their grassroots candidate in the general.

Basically they get to eat their cake and have it too. 

As for wasting one's vote. I feel the only time a vote is wasted is when it is cast for someone who the voter believes isn't the best person running.

To me, holding ones nose and voting for someone because of a letter next to their name even though they aren't the best candidate, is wasting a vote. (If there is such a thing as "wasting" a vote which I don't think there is)

Also votes for third party candidates can act as a barometer to inform major parties how voters feel. 

Yeah, I was talking about state and federal elections. At the local level, a small group of people in the Green Grass party can sway an election. 

You have a misapprehension that the Democratic Party favors the primary process that's in CA and WA. If they liked it, it would be the policy in all blue states. But it's really not a popular idea in the party in general. 

There's a reason for that. This primary process will only make a difference as opposed to the normal method if it results in both candidates being from the same party. And that ain't never going to happen except in very blue states, when the Republican candidate is bested by TWO Democrats--who are also competing with each other. But the opposite effect won't occur in a red state, because there is always only one anointed candidate: whoever is endorsed by Trump. The other candidates will be lucky if they make it home alive (escaping "retribution"). So there's no reason for Republicans to construct a system where they can substitute Trump Republican vs. UnTrump Republican for Republican vs. Democrat. No advantage to them at all.

It would only really make any difference overall if it's done in a purple state, and a third-party candidate has a chance to elbow out the weaker of the two mainstream party candidates. But for that exact reason, it'll never be done in such an environment. The party that generally does worse would never allow it.

I can't speak for the DNC but the Washington State Democrat party likes it. Or at least they heavily went to bat for it in the past. 

I mentioned State Democrat Party favoring  the system because that is the party in power in the only two states that have it. Basically the system heavily favors whatever party has the majority when it's implemented. In a deeply red state the State Republican party would probably favor it too. 

The reason Washington went to a top two primary is because the open primary system they formally had was found unconstitutional. 

Voters didn't want a closed primary where they had to officially declare party affiliation. 

Someone came up with the top two  system as an alternative. I would prefer top five at least. Having only two choices on a general election ballot seems ridiculous to me. Even in elections that are more or less down to two people anyway.