[Paper: pdf]
I build a model that shows that open primaries may result in candidates who are expected
to be ideologically more extreme than in the case of closed primaries. Moreover, the preferred
political positions of candidates nominated by open primaries are also more predictable than the ones of closed primaries. I obtain these results through a model that combines three ingredients of partisan politics: affiliation decisions, nomination rules, and an observed endogenous charisma (or valence), which signal the candidates’ ideologies. I consider three nomination rules: nomination by the party leader, by closed primaries, and by open primaries. I then trace the conditions under which nomination by party leaders leads to higher social welfare than nomination by open primaries.
*Previously circulated as "Primaries and endogenous valence", among other working titles.