Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters

Opinion

The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The Washington Post editorial board penned a bold piece (Bill Cassidy and America’s Increasingly Broken Primary System) in the wake of President Trump’s successful vendetta against the Louisiana Senator. They could have taken the easy route and pointed a finger at the Republicans. Instead, they took issue with both parties and their insatiable appetite to control the rules of the game and punish anyone who steps out of line.

In a media landscape dominated by partisan propaganda, it’s refreshing to read an opinion piece that encourages readers to actually look at what’s happening.


The Democrats have gotten a pass on the issue of open primaries for years. For the most part, the media has bought in on (and propagated) the myth that when it comes to voting, the Republicans are into voter suppression while the Democrats stand solidly behind voting rights.

I wish we lived in such a simple world.

If you actually look at what’s happening in the country, both the Democrats and the Republicans are systematically attacking the right of independent voters - now 45% of the electorate - to fully participate. The Democrats are leading the charge in DC, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, California, and Nevada, places where independent voters are surging. In Massachusetts, for example, 65% of registered voters have opted for “independent” on their voter registration form and 70% of state legislators run unopposed, but the Mass. Democratic Party strongly opposes the current effort to enact an all candidate primary system. And the Democratic Party of Maryland insists that Governor Wes Moore didn’t really mean it when he spoke out in favor of letting one million independents participate in Maryland primary elections.

Not to be outdone, the Republicans are on the warpath in Colorado, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama and Texas, where they are advancing bills and lawsuits to force voters to join a party if they want to participate in (taxpayer funded) primary elections. In Tennessee, the GOP legislature posts these signs on every poll in the state. No wonder primary turnout is 14% while general election turnout is 64% in the Volunteer State.

Both parties work overtime to rig the rules in their favor. But for some reason, the media has bought into this myth that the Republicans are the bad guys and the Democrats are the good guys, when in fact both parties, in different states and in different ways, lock the system down through gerrymandering and closed primaries. They definitely don’t want independent voices participating, and they want to make sure that their elected officials are completely loyal to the party, that they’re not going to represent their people that put them in there, but the party apparatus that gets them elected.

The other aspect of the Post editorial worth noting is more philosophical.

America is a competitive place. Good or bad, it’s a feature of our culture. And we Americans are accustomed to competition increasing as you get closer to naming a winner. Many people tune into the NBA playoffs, March Madness or the Olympics only after the preliminary rounds are over. That’s how competition works.

But the Democrats and Republicans have turned competition completely on its head. In 90% of America, competition actually decreases after the first round. The general election is an afterthought, predetermined by gerrymandering and other factors. For most of us, all the competition is in the primary - round one - and most of us are not paying attention and participating.

It’s a sorry state of affairs. And the open primaries movement has our work cut out for us.

We need to enact open and nonpartisan primaries in states that are closed. We need to defend open primaries from attacks from both major parties. And we have to educate the American people that voting in round one is how to exercise power. We can’t wait until November to make our voices heard. In most races, the game is up.

John Opdycke is the president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization.


Read More

CT election security group honors 10 years of fighting for democracy

A 2021 poll shows 73% of Connecticut voters supported the amendment giving all voters the option to vote by absentee ballot without needing an excuse.

(Adobe Stock)

CT election security group honors 10 years of fighting for democracy

A Connecticut voting-rights group is celebrating its 10th anniversary.

Bridgeport Generation Now has worked to broaden voting access and ensure fairer elections for city residents. Some of its most important work came at a time when many Bridgeport residents felt their votes didn't matter, pointing to absentee ballot fraud as the cause.

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Is Not a Closed-Book Test
white and black labeled box

Voting Is Not a Closed-Book Test

The Supreme Court closed out its term and issued decisions that could affect millions of Americans. Among them is Watson v. Republican National Committee, in which the court decided in a 5-4 decision to uphold longstanding Mississippi law and allow mail-in ballots received post-Election Day to be counted.

The legal implications of the decision will be analyzed for months, if not years. But beyond the legal questions is a practical one: What role does mail voting actually play in helping Americans participate in elections?

Keep ReadingShow less
The New Fight Over Election Observation
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The New Fight Over Election Observation

As a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the U.S. has signed the foundational agreement committing all participating states to open elections to external scrutiny and inviting fellow members to observe through the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The 2024 ODIHR observation mission to the U.S. found the fundamentals reassuring—a well-run process, active engagement, free campaigning—but issued 31 recommendations to align U.S. elections with international standards and commitments. Four stand out: federal pre-clearance legislation against discriminatory election-law changes; reassessing the Electoral College; balanced representation in election administration; and guaranteed access for international and nonpartisan observers—notable, since 17 states still legally bar international observation, which is at odds with commitments made by all 57 OSCE states. Yet over a year later, follow-through is thin: no pre-clearance restoration, no Electoral College review, unchanged observer-access laws. Where movement exists—in disinformation tools, in financial disclosure—it remains piecemeal.

An uncomfortable convergence

Keep ReadingShow less
Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026
a person is casting a vote into a box

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act stands as the direct antithesis of our founders' aspirations for the American Experiment, eroding the core principles of popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Rather than cultivating a government that derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," this legislative measure inverts that relationship. It transforms a natural right into a government-administered privilege, erecting bureaucratic barriers that conflict with the expansive, participatory democratic republic the Framers sought to construct.

Subverting the Consent of the Governed: the foundational premise of the American Experiment, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is that the legitimacy of a government hinges entirely on the active consent of its citizens. The SAVE Act disrupts this dynamic by fundamentally shifting the burden of proof.

Keep ReadingShow less