On March 3, we saw a pair of vicious Texas Senate primaries, one of which came to a close and the other of which is set for a runoff of further torture. For many Americans, party primaries are just the way we do things, and since the 1970s, it has been.

But in the midst of primary season, I have a surprising take. I don’t think we should have party primaries. Typically, when I share this perspective with people, I am charged with being antidemocratic, to which all I have to say is: “Yes.” 

Political parties do not benefit from being internally democratic. Our election primary system is part of the reason candidates have gotten so extreme, and it's a contributing factor to our political polarization.

Not all institutions benefit from being Democratic

Our system is rooted in the idea that absolute democracy is not good and leads to small majorities imposing their will on the rest. We see this effect in our presidential elections, in which presidents elected by minorities or slim majorities of voters claim sweeping mandates for change.

It is for this reason that the federal judiciary operates through appointments. Americans don't want the types of judges who only need to be elected by a slim majority of voters.

From the outset of our country, we recognized this concept applied to the Senate as well, until the 17th Amendment changed that in 1913. 

Modern American politics has been plagued with increasingly radical and polarizing candidates, not truly being able to build a coalition that has lasted longer than one presidency. 

For those who don't see an alternative, we don't have to look too far into the past to find one. The modern primary structure wasn't fully established until the 1970s. Prior to that point, parties selected the candidates they thought best represented their interests ‒ and voters ‒ in the general elections. That is the sort of process we should return to today.

Primary elections are a place for the most partisan voters to take control of the party nominations. Nearly 80% of eligible voters don’t participate in primaries, meaning that the 20% who are most passionate and partisan are choosing candidates on behalf of the rest. 

Those who are uneasy about voters being cut out of the process should recognize that the median voter already is cut out. The incentive structure for candidates is broken. Under the current dynamic, candidates are incentivized to engage in bloody primary fights, such as those in Texas on March 3, to differentiate themselves from one another among the most partisan voters, only to moderate once the general election comes around.

Party deliberations don't benefit from being public

Just about the only benefit of open primaries is that it vets candidates in public. This gives Americans the chance to uncover scandals, weigh in on whether they matter or not, and air things out before they can become an October surprise in the general election. 

However, this, too, is a two-way street. The result is extraordinarily bloody primary fights becoming all the more common. Again, just look at the fight in Texas, in which U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett claimed campaign mailers that backed her Democratic rival, state legislator James Talarico, were racist. The same goes for the Republican side, in which the fight between U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has become incredibly hostile as well. 

These party deliberations have such animosity because they are public. The debates about who is the better candidate to represent the party are much better served by being private, in which parties can internally deliberate the strengths and weaknesses of candidates without it devolving into public charges against their character. 

Returning to closed-door party primaries not only has the aforementioned benefit of boosting stronger candidates for general elections, but it also lowers the temperature of our politics. We could all desperately use that now, and primary elections are hurting, not helping.

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

© USA TODAY