Perverse Primaries - NYTimes.com

Learned something new about the "Sore Loser law", but I wonder, is this really just a side issue as some claim. With this "law" coupled with the Citizens United (to be read $$$$) doesn't it put lesser known political figures (third party candidates) at a disadvantage thereby skewing the election process. In some ways this seems a bit undemocratic as it lessens voter choice resulting in only a small group of people actually being represented

OBSERVERS of our polarized democracy often blame party primaries for producing some of our most extreme politicians. It’s well known that the most vociferous and partisan activists have a disproportionate influence in primaries.

Less well known is this: 44 states have “sore loser” laws of one form or another. These laws effectively block a candidate who fails to win a party primary from appearing on the general election ballot, as either an independent or as the nominee of another party.

These laws deprive voters of a full array of choices. They are arguably even more insidious than partisan redistricting, which affects House races but not Senate ones.

[,,,]
Advocates of open primaries argue that letting all voters choose among all the candidates, regardless of party, forces candidates to make a broader appeal, resulting in more moderate or centrist candidates. The political scientists Barry C. Burden, Bradley Jones and Michael S. Kang found that in states with sore-loser laws, congressional candidates were more ideologically distant from one another — that is, more polarized — than in states without them.

Perverse Primaries - NYTimes.com