The major real problem that can be associated with the direct primaries, is the very high possibility of “Uncontrolled Malpractices”, and not actually the popular “High Cost Implications” that are being carried around and being forced upon us to believe.
No Primaries is Cheap to even start with.
..
But if I am to choose between Direct and Indirect Primaries, I would choose the Direct Primaries, even though it has a high possibility of “Uncontrolled Malpractices”, but nevertheless, those malpractices can be controlled to the barest minimum.
My main reason for choosing the direct primaries is that it gives the whole party members the opportunity to participate in the selection of their candidates.
..
The very first step to curbing the Malpractices would be to have a valid Party Register, with all the information about the members including their INEC’s Voters Card Information, properly documented in the Register.
But then, even if the party has a functional register of ALL the Party-Members, that alone cannot stop the menace of over-voting, the importation of voters, and the writing of results..
..
THE PARTY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER USE THE INEC’S VOTERS CARD-NUMBER TO ACCREDIT THE VOTERS, OR TO GENERATE INDIVIDUAL TEMPORARY “VOTING CODES” AND SEND TO ALL THE REGISTERED MEMBERS OF THE PARTY WITHIN THE DESIRED GEOPOLITICAL BOUNDARIES (AS APPROPRIATE) AHEAD OF THE PRIMARIES, FOR THEM TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE ACCREDITATION PURPOSES..
..
On the day of the Primaries, only the number of VOTING-CODES which the voting-system decrypted and accepted as authentic, would definitely become the actual number of people who participated in the primaries, since they were the only ones that were assumed to be accreditated.
..
But then, there might be another problem to that..
If the “VOTING CODES” were generated by a Human-Being, then the process can be compromised.. A desperate person can still go and pay the persons who generated and sent-out the VOTING-CODES, so as to have possession of the codes and still use them to commit the crime of Multiple-Voting...
..
Well, unless the VOTING CODES were automatically generated and sent anonymously to the registered members by a computer (and the messages encrypted by the same computer after being sent to the members), so that the codes cannot be physically retrieved by anybody, no matter what methods they tried to use..
..
This one however cannot prevent impersonation-voting, where someone gets the VOTING-CODES of other members from them and then go ahead to vote on their behalf, but it would definitely stop Multiple-Voting and Result-Writing.
..
It will also prevent imported voters, since the Machine-Generated VOTING-CODES were only sent to the members within the appropriate geopolitcal boundary, and thus, imported members are automatically disqualified and disenfranchised.

fergie001:
I will contribute ....

fergie001:
One, my position has always been to let political parties decide their mode of primaries.

However, direct primary is healthy but all States and politics have their own peculiarities.

Some of these issues have legal implications because INEC won't participate but only supervise.

If Parties generate codes to stop over-voting and so on... what is the difference with Indirect Primaries where someone who has access to your voting-codes information could manipulate the codes?

In Summary, there are no "best" methods you implement that politicians won't find a way to circumvent.

My problem is not the system, but the players.

BluntCrazeMan:


What's the gain in anyone trying to manipulate the codes??

The major aim of the codes is just to control the excesses, and not to individualise the voters (at least for the meantime).
By this, I mean, a person can get the codes (or the INEC’s Voters Cards) of the other members from these members and go and vote for them on their behalf.
..
That's the only worst thing that could ever happen.
..
Since there are no ways to make sure that the person who presented the codes for accreditation are the real owners of the original “identity” to whom the codes were sent, some desperate politicians would definitely start harvesting these voting-codes from the various party-members by any means possible; unless of course the party decided to make use of the newly introduced INEC’s BVAS Device for reading the voter's biometrics and confirming the identity of the individual..
But that would mean that the party is now no more fully dependent on their own systems, but heavily dependent on the INEC’s database system.
..
Nevertheless, as time goes on, with some early failures and further trials, the best options would definitely be achieved on the long run.

tk4rd:
The Primaries are mainly done using the open-ballot methods, where people stand in the lines corresponding to who they want to vote for.
This method you're describing can only work for open-secret-ballot or secret-ballot methods.

BluntCrazeMan:
You mean, the persons that conducted the open-ballot primaries do not care whether members of other parties participated and voted in the primaries?
The open-ballot method can be conducted in an enclosed area, where the only-accredited members can stay-in and vote.
..
The reason I even suggested the use of “voting-codes” is for the primaries to be able to be digitally monitored, so that the number of the participants in the primaries would not be determined manually.
Thus, only those whom the “voting-codes” system captured, are the only ones that can enter the venue of the primaries.

tk4rd:
I think I understand your point.
..
But deploying such accreditation systems across the whole wards in all the LGAs (especially for presidential primaries) would be so costly and cumbersome for the primaries,, being that the open-ballot method would still be used at the end of the day.
Manual accreditation using the Hard-copy registers would have solved the problem too