'Better for the country' != 'Better for the democrats' (or republicans for that matter)
& this primary result is 'Better for the democrats'.
While open primaries might empower political minorities, it's also vulnerable to cynical political abuse. And this is an example of just that- the actual effect & intent of unseating cantor is to deprive the republican party of their majority leader & throw a wrench into their works. Instead of one of their figureheads, the republicans get a freshman congressman that rode in upon the hands of their enemies.
It's not as if voting in the primary excludes one from voting in the general election either- or even voting against the candidate you helped nominate, (which will be widespread here).
Meanwhile your 'disenfranchised' voters
still vote. They just lack a majority.
Without an open primary they'd be 'disenfranchised' in the sense that they can't prop up an imbecile as their opponent's candidate before voting against him.
Further, your '70% want candidate A instead of candidate B' fun-with-numbers argument doesn't hold up, (btw I think this math is off, should be more like 60% want candidate A).
Let's see..
Candidate A: repub underdog
Candidate B: repub frontrunner
Candidate C: dem frontrunner
So, of 100%,
40% prefer B, then A, then C
35% prefer A, then B, then C
25% prefer C, then A, then B
If C is out of the equation, (like in a republican primary), then yeah sure 60% want A over B.
But without A, (like in the general election),
75% prefer B.
This wasn't a heartwarming 'political minorities unite!' story, it was a spiteful play to hurt the republican party.
No, I think he's saying that voting in each other's primaries for the candidate you think likeliest to lose the general election because they're such an unacceptable choice that the general public couldn't possibly vote for them, is how we wind up with a field composed entirely of unacceptable candidates come election time.
Yar, that's the 'meta-to-the-extreme' I put forward.