Virginia elects its three statewide state executive officers in November 2013. The three offices are Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General. On May 18, the Republican Party nominated by convention, held in the Richmond Coliseum. Delegates had been chosen in city and county conventions held between March 1 and April 30. Approximately 8,000 delegates participated. Here are the rules on how delegates were chosen. No fee was required for Delegates, but Delegates who paid a voluntary $35 were entitled to special perks, as listed in the rules.
Virginia is the only state in which either major party ever nominates for Governor by convention (with no primary), although in several other states, lower level statewide executive nominees of major parties are chosen in conventions. The Virginia Republican Party also nominated by convention in 2009, although it nominated by primary in 2005.
They’re essentially converting public property (the ballot) into private use.
That is the advantage of Top 2. Candidates have equal access to the ballot without regard to affiliation with political parties, while political parties are still free to support candidates.
Candidates in Great Britain, Canada, Wisconsin, and Florida (and many other countries, in fact most free countries), also have equal access to the ballot, but those places don’t have top-two. There is no logical connection between the two topics.
#1 seems to think parties are public property simply by participating in a public function. That’s the sort of thinking that leads to greater partisan entrenchment. Political parties are voluntary associations, and as such they are not integral to government. Therefore they may choose candidates however they see fit. However, if a candidate with a sizable number of supporters fails to receive the ballot line of a party (for whatever reason), he/she should have an easier time making the ballot on their own as an independent than he or she had trying to receive the nomination they sought. The sooner people in power recognize parties are voluntary, non-monolithic groups, the sooner ballot restrictions will be eased.
#3 It is the ballot that it is the public property.
Part of that ballot is being turned over to private groups.
You wrote:
However, if a candidate with a sizable number of supporters fails to receive the ballot line of a party.
What you are really saying is that after the government has granted control of part of the ballot to a private group, and a candidate failed to be given exclusive control of that part of the ballot, he ought to be able to get on the ballot.
Under Top 2, any candidate is able to get direct access to the ballot. Political parties are free to recruit or encourage or support candidates. Political parties under such a system are not given the power to exclude candidates.
The purpose of partisan primary is not to so much to determine the nominee of a political party, but to exclude competitors.
#2 In Great Britain, Canada, Louisiana, Washington, and California all candidates appear on an initial ballot that is available to all voters.
In Great Britain and Canada, a candidate may be elected by a plurality vote.
The distinction is that ballot access is candidate-based rather than party-based.
#5, the ballots in Britain and Canada that contain all candidates are ballots for the election itself. Every group is permitted to run in the election itself in those countries, and all have equal ballot access.
By contrast, in top-two systems in the United States (which is the only nation that uses them), the ballot for the election itself, in practice, allows only Democrats and Republicans to participate. The only top-two elections in which any other party has ever placed first or second are elections in which only one major party candidate was running.
#5 Under a parliamentary system, it may make more sense to have candidates represent groups. You may recall the election where a NDP (NPD) candidate was elected in Quebec, and hoped soon to visit her riding, that she heard it was lovely, and she hoped to learn French.
But in the United States, candidates represent areas, and it is a requirement that they reside in the area. They do not represent the party. There is no reason to let political parties mediate access to the ballot.
Are you saying that if California moved the primary back to September or October and permitted election in primary (as they already do for nonpartisan election) that you would be content?
It is not a requirement in the U.S. that candidates for Congress live in the area they seek to represent.
Every state has procedures for independent candidates to get on the ballot, so it is not true that parties “mediate” access to the ballot. Anyone is free to avoid parties and yet get on the ballot.