I'm not convinced eliminating primaries is a good idea. They have a useful role in reducing the effort and cost of campaigning in a general election. Consider

I'm not convinced eliminating primaries is a good idea. They have a useful role in reducing the effort and cost of campaigning in a general election. Consider a scenario where some party spends a hundred million dollars in the general election promoting one candidate versus another party that spends a hundred million dollars in the general election split between five different candidates. I would expect the former party to be more likely to get their candidate elected that the latter. Also another nice thing about primaries is that they're staggered. I think it's ridiculous that Iowa and New Hampshire always go first, but ignoring that it's great that a candidate without a lot of funding only has to focus on a couple of states in the initial stage, and can use success in the early states to gain momentum (and funding). That means you don't have to be some self-funding rich person to run for president, which is a nice property.