This paper revisits prior research on primary selection mechanisms and their impact on candidate electoral strength. Previous studies failed to account for the interdependence of party procedures in candidate selection, leading potential inaccuracies.

### Assessing Previous Findings

The authors challenge past assumptions regarding plebiscitarian selection methods by introducing a comparative analysis that considers diverse political contexts.

### New Evidence from Comparative Analysis

Drawing on original data spanning seven parties and 296 regional elections across Canada, Germany, and Spain—alongside sixty-two pre-election polls in Germany and Spain—the research provides compelling insights:

• Primary-selected candidates are not demonstrably stronger than those selected through alternative mechanisms.

• A significant penalty exists for parties avoiding primary selection when their main rivals employ such methods.

• This negative effect is particularly pronounced when primaries aren't divisive and occur close to general elections.

### Political Science Implications

The findings suggest that open candidate selection processes may be less impactful than previously thought, indicating a need for more nuanced approaches in comparative political analysis.