Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voters Want Progress. The Parties Want Control

Opinion

Voters Want Progress. The Parties Want Control
person holding blue and white UNK pin back button
Photo by Jennifer Burk on Unsplash

Advocates for closed primaries believe that political parties should be allowed to limit participation to registered party members. Their logic is…logical. Why should Elks Club Members have a say in Rotary Club Business?

But Americans are looking for ways to make our country better, logical or otherwise. They don’t care about the self-serving rules and arguments that the two-party cartel has set up to keep us siloed. They want to vote. They want to impact. They want to be heard.


So let’s dive deeper into what is really going on in states that legally bar independents from voting. It’s wild!

Open Primaries and the Independent Voter Project conducted a poll in early July of 1400 registered Democrats in New York City. We asked them a simple question: “Why did you decide to register to vote as a Democrat?”

The answers will astound you.

48% said that they registered to vote as a Democrat because they are a proud member of the Democratic Party, or because they usually vote Democratic, and so it made sense to join the party. 39% said I’m not a Democrat, I’m an independent; I registered to vote Democrat to be able to vote in primaries. The remaining 13% were either Republicans or unsure.

Almost half of Democrats in New York City…are not Democrats.

If the goal is to ensure that only party members are involved in selecting party nominees, then the closed system is a complete failure. Hundreds of thousands of independents have registered as Democrats simply because they want a say in who will represent them.

And New York is not an anomaly.

I was talking with my friend Joe Kirby about these numbers, and he brought me up to speed on what’s happening in real time in South Dakota. Joe is a lifelong Republican, a conservative businessman, and a staunch advocate for nonpartisan primaries. We’ve worked together for a decade to advance the open primary conversation in the Mt. Rushmore State - and we both have the scars to show for it.

The South Dakota GOP primary for Governor was on June 2. No candidate cleared 35%, so a runoff was held on July 28 to decide the winner. Between June 3 and July 13 - the deadline to change your registration - thousands of South Dakota independents and Democrats changed their voter registration to Republican in order to vote in the runoff, which is the de facto General Election.

“They didn’t suddenly become Republicans,” Joe told me. “They simply wanted a meaningful voice in choosing the person who will likely become South Dakota’s next governor. And the biggest lesson isn’t simply who won. It is that thousands of South Dakotans wanted a voice in the election that really mattered. For one election, South Dakota experienced something resembling an open primary. Participation broadened. The winning candidate earned support from a larger and more representative electorate. The process worked much as advocates of open primaries have long argued it would.”

Both New York and South Dakota exposed that our crazy system of partisan voter registration and closed primaries forces millions of Americans to join private organizations that don’t believe in just to participate and have a voice.

And party activists claim that closed primaries keep their parties pure! It’s actually the exact opposite. If political parties want to limit membership to true believers, they should a) embrace open and nonpartisan primaries and nonpartisan voter registration. Then the only reason to join a party is that you believe in it, not because you’ve been coerced into joining just to vote.

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


Read More

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
Voting
Voting
krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images

Can Independents Run Through the Jungle?

Last week, the independent movement’s road to Washington hit a snag in, well, the other Washington. One promising campaign for the US House has ended, and another teeters, and all of it raises the question of whether the sort of jungle primaries they face can be conducive to success for nonparty candidates, and what they might take to successfully navigate moving forward.

In Washington’s 1st Congressional District, located just northeast of Seattle, independent James Etzkorn finished 3rd in his primary race, garnering just over seven percent of the vote. Suzan DelBene, the seven-term incumbent and DCCC Chair, came in first with 53%, while Republican Mary Silva - the lone R in the seven-candidate field - earned about 27%. Several Democrats running to the left of DelBene finished lower in the ranks, sharing the remainder of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play

Latino voters

AI generated photo

Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play

Weeks before Americans cast their midterm ballots, President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate an executive order that would sharply restrict mail‑in voting. Courts have already blocked the order, calling it an overreach that would inject federal control into state‑run election systems. But the administration is pressing ahead anyway, and the consequences — especially for Latino voters — could be profound.

Mail‑in voting is not a luxury. It is how working parents, seniors, rural voters, people with disabilities, and millions of naturalized citizens participate in democracy. It is how communities that have historically faced barriers to the ballot box finally gained reliable access. And it is how Latino voters — the fastest‑growing segment of the electorate — have expanded their political power. When a president asks the Supreme Court to take that access away, we should be clear about what is happening: this is not about election integrity. It is about power.

Keep ReadingShow less