Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The speech Joe Biden won’t give

Joe Biden speaking in Pennsylvania
Anadolu/Getty Images

Opdycke is the founder and president of Open Primaries, a national advocacy organization working to enact and protect open and nonpartisan primaries and enhance the visibility and power of independent voters. His monthly column, Brash Tacks, offers insights into how a people-powered, non-ideological democracy movement can be most effective in revamping our political process and culture to meet the needs of a complex and ever-changing 21st century landscape.

Jackie Salit was a guest recently on Primary Buzz, the monthly virtual discussion I host at Open Primaries.

Salit is a pioneer in independent politics. She is the author of “ Independent’s Rising,” co-author of “ The Independent Voter ” and co-founder of the Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy at Arizona State. She is president of Independent Voting and serves on the national board of the Forward Party. For 30 years she’s been building political initiatives and organizations to give expression to the growing “I’m not on Team Blue or Team Red” sensibility that is sweeping the nation.


We talked about the state of American politics — the good, the bad and the ugly. We explored the exciting movement in Arizona (they’ve already gathered 300,000 signatures!) to put a referendum on the ballot for nonpartisan primaries for state and federal races and open primaries for presidential contests. Salit shared the research she and Thom Reilly, her partner at ASU, are doing to explore the cultural differences between independents and partisans. We deconstructed why the punditry insists that independent voters are really “leaners.”

And then we went deep.

Me: The latest polls have independents at 45 percent. They swung the results in 2020 and 2022. And yet Joe Biden and Donald Trump seem determined to alienate independents by campaigning and/or governing in an ultra-partisan way. Don’t they want to win? What’s going on? Why won’t either candidate reach out and form a coalition with independents?
Salit: Let’s look at President Biden for a minute. It breaks my heart that the president is so committed to a party-first approach to governing that he won't get up in front of television news cameras and say, “America, I understand why almost half the country are identifying as independents. I wish they were Democrats. But they're not. They are independent for a reason. I understand and respect that. And I pledge to the American people, including the 45 percent of the country who identify as independents, that I will work to assure that what is meant by ‘democracy being on the ballot’ is that independent candidates will be respected, independent parties will be respected, the attacks that were leveled on No Labels and are now being leveled against Robert Kennedy have no place in a true democracy. And I am going to put the full weight of my office and my party behind open primaries and open debates and nonpartisan election administration and other reforms that create a level playing field for independent candidates and independent voters in our great country.” Sadly, it is beyond me to comprehend why President Biden won't give that speech. But it's the obvious speech to give right now.

It is the obvious speech to give. If Biden reached out to independent voters in a way that legitimized their concerns about the self-serving nature of the parties, he could probably win with 60 percent of the vote. But he won’t. And neither will Donald Trump, and Trump’s decision to attend the Libertarian Party convention is no doubt designed to quash the pull towards independent voting on the right. The brilliant political observer Walter Karp once wrote in his book “ Indispensable Enemies ” that political parties are supremely committed to maintaining control of their institutions. “This,” he wrote, “not election victory, is the fundamental and unswerving principle of party politics in America.” Both major parties would rather lose the election than create a level playing field for voters outside of the red/blue thunderdome.

Independents are figuring out what to do about this institutionalized gaslighting. Some are gravitating towards Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other independent candidates. The Forward Party is not running a presidential candidate but is building state-based, non-ideological organizations with a long-term party-building strategy in mind. It is also running and endorsing local candidates, training grassroots activists and experimenting with a new model of a national political party.

Former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards is pushing to end sore loser laws that prevent mainstream politicians from running as independents. Lee Drutman and others are pushing to restore fusion voting, which would give independent parties new opportunities to build coalitions with other parties and candidates. The LetUsVote campaign to recognize and empower independents is recruiting thousands of independent voters to record videos about why they are independents. Independents in Tennessee are pushing back against draconian signs posted at every polling place in the state threatening jail time for voters who are not “bona fide party members.”

Union leader Dan Osborn is running for Nebraska Senate as an independent to challenge the failure of both parties to advance the lives of working people. Football legend Rocky Bleier has become a fierce champion for the rights of independents. There are dozens of campaigns underway to grant full voting rights to independents in primary elections.

New parties, new campaigns, new initiatives, new conversations — independents are stepping up. What will the impact be on who wins the presidency? Who knows. But there is an emerging movement of independents working to create a level playing field and a more responsive and effective democracy.

Sandi Hebley, an independent voter in Texas, put it perfectly on the LetUsVote blog:

"We aren’t organized. We don’t have the organizational infrastructure to make noise as a group. We don’t have recognized leaders with titles and name recognition. While we don’t want to become just another political party, we need ways to be visible."

Independents becoming visible — and powerful — would change the entire political culture in ways that will benefit all Americans. Even Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The legacy parties would have to adapt as a result. Our democracy will be better, stronger and more durable.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less