Are closed primaries and caucuses a covert way of disenfranchising voters?

I think it is just a way to keep them honest.

In places where there are no restrictions a voter could choose a person who would make a ridiculous opponent just to screw things up.

If Group A was afraid that zzzzz would beat their candidate they could push for fffffffff.

Crooked votes can spoil the outcome.

I think parties should be allowed to nominate their own candidates. Remember when Obama was leading in the Demo primaries in 2008, Rush Limbaugh told Republicans in safe Republican states to re-register as Democrats and vote for Hillary? Dirty pool. But then what did we expect from the likes of Limbaugh.

In fact, I don't think the Republican candidate is chosen by voters at all. Traditionally party leaders pick the guy they like and line up the money behind him, and when he joins the race first with the biggest war chest the media crown him as the 'presumptive candidate' and mostly ignore all the others. Doesn't it seem like everyone already knows Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee? The primaries are only a rubber stamp.

Independents have no right to vote in a party's internal elections (which is what primaries are, by the way - internal discussions about message).

Do you feel disenfranchised because you don't get to vote in each Congressional district? Of course not - you have no stake in a race in New York if you live in California. Just like you have no stake in a Republican primary if you're a Democrat.

EDIT: Just because some states allow something does not make it a RIGHT. Independents have no RIGHT to vote in the primaries of any political party. Many states have, however, decided that there may be value to expanding the primary to as many potential voters as possible, to see which candidates may be able to leverage a broader support base in the general election. But others have decided that getting broader input is not a concern to them. Again, that's an internal decision to extend PRIVILEGES to people outside the Party, and in no way is intended to "disenfranchise" voters.

No it is a way to keep people from doing what was done in the Hilary/Obama primary in Texas. Many wish to put into the final general election that their choice would most likely win against.

If Hilary challenged our foolish President, I'm not sure which I'd vote for in California, but I'd for go voting in my primary to inject confusion in theirs!

So people who take the blue pill should be treated like the people who take the red pill?

What right does anyone who is not a republican have in deciding who the republican nominee is? If Ron Paul lighta up your world and he was a big enough hypocrite to register republican instead of Libertarian, why are you such a coward?

maximum persons do no longer vote simply by apathy or simply by fact they sense that no rely how they vote no longer something will ever substitute and that they are going to easily finally end up with corruption and that it relatively is the way it has constantly been and could constantly be. The latter is reasons why I gave up on politics for a quantity of time. yet then i began out to locate applicants that project the status quo/business enterprise with the aid of Libertarianism/Constitutionalism.

They're primaries, not actual elections. They really only have to follow the parties rules.

The party should be able to select their candidate

No, it's not covert at all.

No.