Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Empowering Independent Voters Can Fix Primary Elections

A person at a voting booth.

Independent voters now make up the largest voting bloc in the U.S., yet many are excluded from primaries and debates. Why reforming primary elections requires empowering independents.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Not long ago, almost no one talked about the rules and culture of primary elections. Today, there is a growing recognition that the way we run primary elections isn’t working. They’re too partisan. Too low turnout. Too dominated by ideological activists. My organization, Open Primaries, has spent years pushing this conversation into the mainstream.

But we won’t fix primaries purely by tweaking rules. Their dysfunction is a symptom of a larger problem: the systemic exclusion of independent voters from our political life. To truly reform them, we have to start with an honest discussion about why so many Americans are leaving the parties- and what it would take to empower them as full participants in our democracy.


As Gallup reported last month, independents are now, at 45%, the largest group of voters in the country. They are a majority of Gen Z voters (56%) and millennial voters (54%) alike. They are the largest group of registered voters in ten states — blue states like Massachusetts, red states like Alaska, and purple states like North Carolina. They are liberal, conservative, moderate, and everything in between.

And growing. Every week, 10,000 Americans change their voter registration status from Democrat or Republican to independent.

Yet independent voters in America are treated as second-class citizens. Their very existence is downplayed by political scientists who insist they are actually “partisan leaners.” They are denied meaningful participation in candidate selection, shut out of debates, marginalized in media coverage, ignored in policymaking, and locked out of primaries. They are told: join a party, or have your influence diminished.

It simply will not be possible to achieve lasting reform of primary elections without an honest discussion of and attention to the role of independent voters in our democracy.

To mark this moment on the 250th anniversary of our country’s founding, when independents are surging, and Americans across the political spectrum are demanding a new path forward, Open Primaries has released the Declaration of Independents: a broad call for full voter empowerment. It asserts that independents deserve equal participation across the full spectrum of political activity - not just primaries, but debates, ballots, media coverage, policymaking, and candidate access itself.

As the Declaration declares: We hold it to be self-evident that voters should be equal in voice, equal in dignity, and equal in political rights; that no citizen’s participation should depend upon allegiance to a party; and that government exists to serve the people, not the factions that compete to control it.

Closed primaries remain the most visible symptom of this inequality. The most partisan candidates are rewarded because “base” voters dominate - and independents are legally barred from voting in many states. Primaries are low-turnout affairs by design. Candidates know all this, and they campaign and govern accordingly. Policies, messaging, and campaign promises are all calibrated to cater to the few at the expense of the many. The result is polarization, dogmatic agendas, and politics that prioritize party loyalty over the public good.

But primaries are only one part of the exclusion. Ballot-access rules favor party nominees, imposing steep hurdles on independent candidates. Debate rules and media coverage reinforce a red-versus-blue framework. Redistricting maps maximize partisan advantage (and have all but eliminated general election competition). Fundraising networks, endorsements, and political infrastructure overwhelmingly favor party-affiliated actors. Across every level of politics, independents are treated as peripheral- their voices heard only when convenient, their influence constrained by rules designed to protect partisan power.

This is structural, not accidental. Rules have been written and defended by party insiders to preserve institutional control. The system rewards loyalty to parties over loyalty to principles. And still, every week, 10,000 Americans leave the parties not out of apathy, but out of principle. Many reject a system that demands adherence to labels and frames every issue as a tribal conflict. Independence allows voters to judge candidates on merit, weigh issues individually, and put the common good above partisan identity.

For that choice, they are penalized.

The Declaration of Independents charts the path forward: full empowerment for independents across elections, campaigns, and political life. It is a blueprint for a democracy that values principles over labels, inclusion over exclusion, and citizens above all else. Give independents equal voice, equal access, and real influence over candidates, policies, and government, and elections, campaigns, and governance finally serve the people - not the factions that claim to represent them.

Primary elections in America today are not working because voters are unequal.

And we must address that inequality if we are going to breathe more health into our democracy.


Jeremy Gruber, JD, is the senior vice president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization and the author of “Let All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States.”


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The exterior of Capitol Hill

Getty Images

Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The 2026 congressional map is finally set after ten states adopted new congressional redistricting maps for the November 3 General Election. Observers note that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has not graded any state’s maps since it gave California’s Proposition 50 an “F” on October 30, 2025.

The PGP has officially paused grading its Redistricting Report Card because founder Dr. Sam Wang, who transitioned from the Gerrymandering Project to the Electoral Innovation Lab, has launched a campaign for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District, requiring him to step back from his academic roles, including his leadership at PGP.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Lady Justice

Photo provided

Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Impunity is not only the failure to punish. It is a public answer to the question of whether harm matters.

Every democracy must repeatedly answer the question of impunity. When public trust is violated, or when law itself is manipulated or attacked, penalties matter. But the deeper question is whether a society can recognize injury and prevent further harm when it has lost the ability to clearly name wrongdoing.

Keep ReadingShow less