Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

27 million voters are shut out of primary elections

Opinion

Participants in Nevada caucus

Nevada held its presidential caucus on Feb. 8. Voters who are not registered with a party are shut out of the process in Nevada.

Noah Riffe/Anadolu via Getty Images

Fisher is senior director of policy and partnerships for Unite America. Macomber is research manager for UA.

Last week, Nevada voters went to the polls to cast ballots in the state’s presidential primaries — well, those voters who were allowed to, at least.

Because Nevada holds “closed” primaries for all offices, only voters registered with the Democratic or Republican parties can participate in the state’s taxpayer-funded primary elections. Independent and minor-party voters are left out. More than 777,000 of the state’s active registered voters (40 percent of the total) are not registered with a major party and, therefore, cannot vote in primaries.

In a new report we co-authored for the Unite America Institute, we unearthed the scale of the problem facing independent voters and the impact of closed primaries. As part of the project, Change Research conducted a first-of-its-kind poll of 2,224 registered independents from 20 states with closed presidential primaries or caucuses (we call these voters “Excluded Independents”).


First, Nevada is far from alone in leaving out independents: 22 states hold closed presidential primaries or caucuses. In these states, over 27 million voters who are not registered with a major party lack the right to participate in the presidential nominating process. They represent nearly 29 percent of all voters in these states, a share that is 20 percent larger than it was in 2010. Fifteen states also hold closed primaries for congressional and state offices, preventing 17.5 million voters from participating.

To make matters worse, the vast majority of congressional districts are “safe” for either the Democrats or the Republicans (currently about 90 percent are safe, according to the Cook Political Report). Primary elections therefore effectively determine who will represent those districts. As a result, tax-paying independent voters lack any voice in who represents them.

The polling results demonstrated that independent voters find their exclusion to be unfair, and that these voters have strong opinions about the current political environment.

Both younger generations and those who served the country are disproportionately forced to the sidelines of our democracy. Nearly 60 percent of Excluded Independents are under 50, compared to just 18 percent who are over 65. And 16 percent of Excluded Independents are veterans, even though just 6 percent of all American adults have served in the military.

Excluded Independents are also “independent thinkers” who hold diverse views that do not align with either the Democratic or Republican party platforms. For instance, 70 percent said they “prefer to assess each candidate individually, rather than by their party affiliation,” while the same percentage acknowledged that they agree with Democrats on some issues and Republicans on others.

Specifically, majorities of Excluded Independents have more trust in the Democrats to address issues like education, health care and climate change, but they have more trust in the Republicans to handle immigration, the economy and public safety.

Asked to describe why they register as independents, Excluded Independents shared a variety of responses, including:

  • “Too many issues go unresolved because politicians are more interested in maintaining party allegiance than representing the people.” – 41-year old woman and veteran from Arizona
  • “I'm an independent thinker and willing to vote for anyone who reflects my beliefs.” – 68-year-old man from Nevada
  • “I share many beliefs with both parties and [have] many beliefs that neither party holds.”
    – 34-year-old woman from Idaho

Unsurprisingly, independent voters do not like elections they cannot vote in. Over three-quarters find it unfair that they cannot participate in taxpayer-funded partisan primaries, and 82 percent want to be able to vote in Democratic or Republican presidential primaries. An even larger share, 87 percent, support opening primaries to independent voters, as 35 states have already done. Colorado and Maine were the most recent states to do so in 2016 and 2021, respectively. New Mexico and Pennsylvania independents may be next to gain access to the primary franchise, as advocacy campaigns are underway in their states.

Excluded independents also overwhelmingly support primary reform. More than 80 percent support nonpartisan primaries, allowing all candidates to compete on the same primary ballot open to all voters. Nevada voters have the chance this year to correct the ill of closed primaries. If “final-five voting” is approved this fall, the aforementioned 770,370 voters will be able to vote in taxpayer-funded elections for state and congressional offices.

At a time when both of the major parties’ leading presidential candidates struggle to keep their national favorability ratings above 40 percent, it makes sense to allow all voters to have a say in who will win the major party nominations.

Voting is a cherished civic right, but 27 million registered voters cannot fully exercise the franchise. By remedying this injustice for those who have declared their political independence, the country will have a more functional government better representing the country’s views.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less