If this system had been implemented at a national level Perot wouldn't have got his 5% and thus no matching funds for the next election[1]. Also, if I remember the vote totals correctly, Bush 41 would have had a second term with no Perot in the general.
I believe the math favors the two parties on primaries because they can pay to mobilize.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do believe CA has election considerations (and laws) based on how folks do in the general.
It sounds very much like the Democrats feared a Nader and the Republicans feared a Perot or Tea Party challenger. It solidifies the people who own the machines.
1) how that 5% was wasted in the next general is not really much of a debate
Yes, as I said, if there are things based on a showing in specifically the general election, then this change (coupled with a failure to fix those things) is disadvantageous to smaller parties, and is probably inappropriate. Absent that, I don't think it is (clearly) a problem. What remains is a simple question of fact, which a quick search is failing to resolve... I don't think the appropriate response is to make assumptions and rail against assumed injustice where there are plenty of demonstrable injustices. Do the research or stop whining.
I believe the math favors the two parties on primaries because they can pay to mobilize.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do believe CA has election considerations (and laws) based on how folks do in the general.
It sounds very much like the Democrats feared a Nader and the Republicans feared a Perot or Tea Party challenger. It solidifies the people who own the machines.
1) how that 5% was wasted in the next general is not really much of a debate