Star Voting and Primaries
One of the best things about STAR Voting is that it's accurate with any number of candidates and so you don't need a primary. Skipping the primary shortens the election season and saves tons of time and money for both the voters/taxpayers and the candidates which in turn can make running more accessible and help to start to level the playing field.
On the other hand there are times you might want a primary and if so it's totally an option. As Stephano asked on the Equal Vote comment section, "Question: Suppose an alternative voting system (like STAR*) does get implemented somewhere. Once people realize the election is no longer a lesser-of-two-evils vote (i.e., single Democrat vs. single Republican) and the field is much more open, a LOT of new contenders might enter the race: nonpartisan candidates, minor-party candidates, multiple candidates from each major party, and so on, none of whom need to survive a primary election to appear on the general ballot.
Voters could be faced with a bewildering multitude of questionable choices; this won’t endear them to the new system, and might even put the new system in danger of repeal. To keep SRV elections manageable for the electorate, should election authorities raise the bar for who appears on the ballot, to filter out all but the most serious, competent, and generally viable?"
So what do you think? Are there situations where we want a primary and if so when and how should that be applied?
*STAR Voting is the new name for Score Runoff Voting, specifically using a 0-5 scale. STAR stands for Score-Then-Automatic-Runoff)