You're right about the customs surrounding primary elections, and their virtual ownership by the parties.

There is, of course, the little detail that the politicians voted amongst themselves to have the taxpayers foot the bill for this purely party business. I seem to recall that on top of the self-subsidy aspect, long ago there were a series of corrupt primaries that provided a justification for taking over the primaries and putting them under public control. That seems reasonable, but it sets up the confict that we're discussing: Who actually "owns" the primaries?

That's pretty much a rhetorical question. The politicians won't voluntarily give up the taxpayer subsidy for their business and the control they get from playing both sides of the fence.

I think we're done here. It's not often a thread reaches a real end, instead of just fading out inconclusively and in exhaustion, but this one feels over in a good way. Not bad.