Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A healthy democracy cannot discriminate against independent candidates and voters

Opinion

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Princess Blanding

Liberation Party candidate Princess Blanding interrupts the Virginia gubernatorial debate to protest her exclusion from the event.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Alper is the founder of Common Sense Strategies Group and a political strategist focusing on democracy and government reform.


The eyes of the political world were locked in when the candidates for governor of Virginia stepped on the stage for a debate on Sept. 28. With the race between Republican Glenn Youngkin and Democrat Terry McAuliffe tightening, the table was set for a dramatic, head-to-head affair. However, by debate's end, the showstopper unexpectedly was another candidate for governor: Princess Blanding.

Like her Democrat and Republican opponents, Blanding has secured a place on the November ballot. Running under the banner of the Liberation Party that she created, she will make history as the first Black woman to appear on the state's gubernatorial ballot. And yet, despite sharing a place on the ballot with Youngkin and McAuliffe, there was no such place for her on the stage. Rather than meekly accepting the refusal of debate organizers to leave her out of the — she was instead offered a placatory seat in the audience with the hopes she would sit quietly and watch her opponents participate — she protested her exclusion, claiming she had earned the right to be on the stage, and that explicitly leaving her on the sidelines was a form of censorship and voter suppression. Moderator Chuck Todd responded by calling security, who promptly removed Blanding from the venue.

Blanding is right to protest her censorship. Instead of being chucked out of the audience, she should have been on the stage in the first place.

Despite voter discrimination and suppression becoming a national issue that has been used by the two major parties to assail each other and rile up their political bases. In reality, the duopolistic system they have created and fought to maintain is designed to disenfranchise the largest coalition of voters in the country: independent and third-party voters. According to the most recent Gallup polling, 40 percent of registered voters self-identify as unaffiliated from either major party. By creating an election system designed to discourage and disadvantage independent candidates, the parties have left millions of politically homeless voters without a representative voice.

The parties have gotten creative with their tactics to keep independent candidates out of the process. Ballot access requirements, such as pay-to-play fees or petition signatures, are often dramatically higher for independent and third-party candidates and frequently result in candidates getting locked out of the general election.

Even when independent candidates manage to get on the ballot, they are forced to play catch-up in what is already an uphill battle. In states that hold partisan primaries, winning candidates transition into the general election with formidable resources and press exposure already banked, while independents must generate that momentum from scratch. Excluding independents from polls and debates is a tactic designed to keep such candidates on the sidelines, out of sight of the voters.

Even public election financing, long championed by reformers as a critical effort to reduce the influence of big money in our elections, discriminates against independent and third-party candidates. In New York City for example, candidates who participate in closed primary elections receive public funds for the primary and general elections, whereas independents who qualify are only eligible to receive general election grants, ensuring they will face a 2:1 spending deficit.

Instituting nonpartisan primary elections, standardizing ballot access and public financing rules, and mandating the inclusion of all general election candidates in public debates are all simple steps that can be taken to end the discrimination against candidates who have the audacity to run outside of the two parties, leveling the playing field for all candidates regardless of party affiliation.

These critical reforms must be made to achieve a democracy that is more healthy, equitable and representative of the American people.






Read More

Students sitting at a table listening to a speaker.

Tucson youth members of the Arizona Youth Climate Coalition listen as Rep. Adelita Grijalva talks about the importance of youth voices on the issue of climate change and extreme heat. More than a dozen Arizona youth met with Representative Adelita Grijalva and Ward 5 council member Selina Barajas on Tuesday, at El Pueblo Activity Center in Tucson, to share some of their concerns about climate change, as well as some of the work they are already doing to address these issues.

Credit: Stephanie Casanova

Arizona Youth Tell Lawmakers: Climate Change Can’t Wait

When Carmen De Backer was a toddler, she would sit on the couch staring at photos of wildlife in the worn pages of National Geographic magazines her mom bought at the thrift store. She couldn’t read the articles so she would ask her older sisters to tell her about the wildlife in the photos.

That’s where her love for and curiosity about nature started.

Keep ReadingShow less
Back view of crop anonymous female talking to a chatbot of computer while sitting at home

AI chatbots and online therapy promise easier mental health care, but technology may be eroding the boundaries, privacy and human connection that make psychotherapy effective.

David Espejo/Getty Images

Big Tech’s Solutions to Mental Health Bring Bigger Problems

While America is suffering a mental health crisis, the good news is that tens of millions of people are getting help. In 2023, 60 million adults reported having sought counseling or treatment in the previous year, and the numbers continue to rise.

Psychotherapy works because of what’s known as the therapeutic frame, a set of boundaries that create safety and structure for patients and clinicians. Sessions last 50 minutes. Fees are agreed upon prior to the start of treatment. The therapist remains neutral, shares little of their personal life, and holds confidentiality sacred.

Keep ReadingShow less
People walking to voting booths.

People vote in New York's primary elections at an armory and YMCA in Brooklyn on June 23, 2026, in New York City.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Democratic Socialists of America Is Not What It Seems

I liked what I knew about the DSA. I liked what Democratic DSA candidates were saying (with some exceptions). Because I believe strongly that our government must be more about the people in order to be true to our founding principles, and industry should have less power. And so I was in agreement with Democrats who are socialists (with a small "s"); indeed, none of the Democratic DSA candidates are Socialists (with a capital "S")—they do not believe that capitalism should be replaced by government or collective ownership of the means of production.

When I first looked at the Democratic Socialists of America, it sounded as though democracy was central to their philosophy. The DSA states that, "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy."

Keep ReadingShow less
The Erosion of Judicial Integrity
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

The Erosion of Judicial Integrity

The partisanship of the Roberts Supreme Court Republicans violates the neutrality central to the rule of law's legitimacy. Moreover, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, viewed avaricious oligarchs and seditious demagogues as the two gravest threats to democracy. They would doubtlessly view the Roberts Republicans – with rulings institutionalizing oligarchic pay-to-play while embracing Trump’s authoritarianism - as another grave threat.

The Rule of Law Survived One Judicial Coup

Keep ReadingShow less