Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Something has to give: The case for independents

Primary type by state
Independent Voter News

Mikalaski is a staff writer for Independent Voter News and marketing coordinator for IVC Media, a digital marketing firm affiliated with IVN.

This is the first in a three-part series on independent voters.

The most basic right in a healthy democracy is the right to vote. Without this right, governments can turn into the worst of autocracies and dictatorships, ignoring the needs of citizens and abusing the power of the state. Voter discrimination is not a new phenomenon and has been around since the very beginning of the United States.

When we talk about voter discrimination in the U.S., many obvious examples come to mind.

When our country was formed in 1776, only white men over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. Black men weren't legally given the right to vote until the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1870 and even so, previously Confederate states passed Jim Crow laws that continued to systematically disenfranchise black voters.


While the supreme law of the country proclaimed that states could not deny the right to vote on grounds of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, those in power used new methods to keep black men from exercising their right to vote.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Intimidation with physical violence, literacy tests, property tests, and poll taxes to name a few.

Women were not guaranteed the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. However, the same forms of discrimination that were actively being used against black men were passed down to black women.

The same story follows with other minorities as well. The right of Native Americans to vote was not recognized until 1948 and even so they were not eligible to vote in every state until 1962. From the time this article is being written that wasn't even 60 years ago.

We can perceive this phenomenon as not only a failure of our elected leaders, who were meant to govern and safeguard our democracy, but a failure of the system as a whole. Elected leaders may have decided who was worthy of having a piece of the pie in our democracy, or who was worthy of having a voice, but the system in place was also created by white men for white men.

These are not isolated examples of voter discrimination that impacted one small Southern town or affected a few elections. No, these are examples of systemic discrimination that plagued the country for decades and continues to haunt the integrity of our electoral system to this day.

When reflecting on voter discrimination in the United States, there are new forms that have developed within the past few decades that are not as obvious as discrimination based on race or sex.

These new forms of voter discrimination have developed quietly over time as a silent attack on our democracy, justified by private interests and multi-million dollar fundraising. You may not have even heard of these new methods unless you're one of the 42% of U.S. voters who identify as political independents.

Independent voters know these forms of discrimination all too well and it began with the emergence of the two dominant political parties.
"If we mean to support the liberty and independence which has cost us so much blood and treasure to establish, we must drive far away the daemon of party spirit and local reproach." — George Washington

The Republican and Democratic political parties are so powerful that they can control who can and can't vote.

In the United States, there are essentially two phases of elections. The first, arguably the more important, is the primary elections. This is where party members select the candidate they want to represent the party in the general election.

As a result of the Constitution never specifying how the election process would be carried out, the two political parties have decided their own procedures over time.

Primaries were first introduced during the Progressive Era in the early 20th century. This first phase of elections was actually first introduced to weaken the power of bosses and make the process more democratic.

However, over the years both of the two major political parties have passed laws that make it impossible for anyone not a member of their respective party to participate in the primaries.

And so, similarly to the earlier forms of voter discrimination that were the result of a system made by white men for white men, the primaries became a system by parties, for party members only.

Today, in most states only those registered with either the Republican or Democratic party can vote to send a candidate to the general election. The winner of the general election then becomes a representative for everyone.

For almost half of our country who want to remain independent of either major party, this means your vote does not matter. Most simply, "join a party, or don't be represented."

Those who want to keep independent voters out of primary elections often ask, "why would you have the opportunity to vote for the club's leaders? Primaries are for parties, so if you want to participate, join the party."

The problem with this viewpoint is that political parties, unlike a private club or company, elect representatives through a taxpayer-funded process.

Further, party primaries are an important component of a public election process and result in leaders who, once elected, do not just impact party members, but affect everyone.

Followers of the Independent Voter Project weighed in on this very issue not long ago, with several people making statements such as the ones pictured below. While some voters believe independents should not be able to participate in selecting party candidates, others believe the political parties have abused their power as private organizations who are using public funds for their own private activities.


In 2016 alone, nationwide primary elections were estimated to have cost nearly half a billion dollars. Closed primaries, which are closed to non-party members, cost almost 300 million taxpayer dollars yet 26 million voters could not even vote for the very elections they helped fund.

So, how can we have an important stage of the public election process that prohibits half the electorate from participating because they refuse to join a private political party?

Well, we don't have to.

But the two parties in power aren't going to give nonpartisan voters a larger voice on their own.

Something has to give, and it must start with independents standing up to proclaim not only that they exist and want to be heard, but also that independents refuse to fund the interests of two private enterprises that have turned the most fundamental right in a healthy democracy into something conditional on joining one of their private clubs.

Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.

Read More

Trump and Biden at the debate

Our political dysfunction was on display during the debate in the simple fact of the binary choice on stage: Trump vs Biden.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The debate, the political duopoly and the future of American democracy

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.

The talk is all about President Joe Biden’s recent debate performance, whether he’ll be replaced at the top of the ticket and what it all means for the very concerning likelihood of another Trump presidency. These are critical questions.

But Donald Trump is also a symptom of broader dysfunction in our political system. That dysfunction has two key sources: a toxic polarization that elevates cultural warfare over policymaking, and a set of rules that protects the major parties from competition and allows them too much control over elections. These rules entrench the major-party duopoly and preclude the emergence of any alternative political leadership, giving polarization in this country its increasingly existential character.

Keep ReadingShow less
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Voters should be able to take the measure of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., since he is poised to win millions of votes in November.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Kennedy should have been in the debate – and states need ranked voting

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

CNN’s presidential debate coincided with a fresh batch of swing-state snapshots that make one thing perfectly clear: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be a longshot to be our 47th president and faces his own controversies, yet the 10 percent he’s often achieving in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and other battlegrounds could easily tilt the presidency.

Why did CNN keep him out with impossible-to-meet requirements? The performances, mistruths and misstatements by Joe Biden and Donald Trump would have shocked Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, who managed to debate seven times without any discussion of golf handicaps — a subject better fit for a “Grumpy Old Men” outtake than one of the year’s two scheduled debates.

Keep ReadingShow less
I Voted stickers

Veterans for All Voters advocates for election reforms that enable more people to participate in primaries.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

Veterans are working to make democracy more representative

Proctor, a Navy veteran, is a volunteer with Veterans for All Voters.

Imagine this: A general election with no negative campaigning and four or five viable candidates (regardless of party affiliation) competing based on their own personal ideas and actions — not simply their level of obstruction or how well they demonize their opponents. In this reformed election process, the candidate with the best ideas and the broadest appeal will win. The result: The exhausted majority will finally be well-represented again.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting at a dropbox in Washington, D.C.

A bill moving through Congress would only allow U.S. citizens to vote in D.C. municipal eletions.

Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images

The battle over noncitizen voting in America's capital

Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.

Should you be allowed to vote if you aren’t an American citizen? Or according to the adage ‘No taxation without representation’, if you pay taxes should you get to choose the representatives who help spend those tax dollars? Those questions are at the heart of the debate over a bill to restrict voting to U.S. citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less
people walking through a polling place

Election workers monitor a little-used polling place in Sandy Springs, Ga., during the state's 2022 primary.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

What November election? Half of the U.S. House is already decided.

Troiano is the executive director ofUnite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. He’s also the author of “The Primary Solution.”

Last month, Americans were treated to an embarrassing spectacle: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) tradingpersonal insults related to “fake eyelashes” and a “bleach blonde bad built butch body” during a late-night committee hearing. Some likened it to Bravo’s “Real Housewives” reality TV series, and wondered how it was possible that elected officials could act that way and still be elected to Congress by the voters.

The truth is, the vast majority of us don’t actually elect our House members — not even close. Less than 10 percent of voters in Crockett’s district participated in her 2024 Democratic primary, which all but guaranteed her re-election in the safe blue district. Greene ran unopposed in her GOP primary — meaning she was re-elected without needing to win a single vote. The nearly 600,000 voters in her overwhelmingly red district were denied any meaningful choice. Both contests were decided well before most voters participate in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less