I recently saw a piece on CNN about Independent voters. Being fiercely so, it peaked my interest, and I watched it intently. The first part was that there has been a consistent increase in the number of independents. The second part – the part that interested me more – was where the Independents felt left out of the elective process by not being allowed to vote in many of the primaries.
According the to the CNN interview, many people have left the two main parties. They spotlighted a mother and son. The mother was more conservative and the son, a liberal. The son had registered as a Democrat to vote in the 2008 primary in his support of Obama. After the election, he felt that both Obama and (especially) congress, as well as the party had been a huge disappointment compared to their campaign rhetoric. He was going to register as Independent or even for a third party. His mother on the other hand, was a moderate-to-conservative by today’s standards. She hard heard terms thrown at her for her disinterest in gay marriage like RINO (Republican In Name Only). She felt that over the last 10 years, the GOP had made a rightward shift on social issues, and a leftward shift on spending. Due to this, she was looking at registering as an Independent as well. According to the story, this has been a trend for a while, and seems to have grown since the new administration due to a host of reasons from disenchantment of the direction of the president, possible false promises, the parties’ lack of understanding of everyday people, corruption, scandals, etc.
The second part was more interesting to me as it caused the old brain to start working. They began by showing the states that did not allow non-enrolled voters to vote in party-specific primaries. They then outlined how some states allow independents to choose a primary, and vote in it. They even showed some states that allowed anyone to vote in any primary. The story then moved to some Independent activists that were pushing for election changes in their state to allow them a chance to vote in the primaries. Their contention was that the two main parties restricted their right to vote because they did not enroll in their party.
Now, again, if I need to restate my distaste of the two main parties (see here, here, or here) I run the risk of being horribly redundant to earlier articles. My knee-jerk reaction was, like the activists to say, “They are restricting our voting rights”. Thankfully in my old age, I’ve learned that thought and analysis should precede reaction. I thought about the reasons I chose to be Independent, and that they were because neither of the two main parties represented what I felt were the right ways to govern. I thought about logistics and process. I then thought about our system. To me it seemed clear: The parties should be able to restrict anyone they want from THEIR primaries. Why should people from another or no party be allowed to meddle in their decision to put forth a candidate? How does allowing a person that does not want to associate themselves with your party a chance to make decision in it make sense? Would a business allow someone from another competing business to hire their employees? I think not. Independents are denied no rights as all they have to do is register with a party to vote in its primary. Personally, I am happy laughing at the party sheep and their horrible choices. I have the option to choose other parties other than red or blue, and have often done so come election time. I feel no guilt in donating to another party as their party plus mine doesn’t equal purple or some other color of the rainbow. I believe that Independents have larger fish to fry.
If Independents need to feel like you’re a part of a party, join a third for which you believe in, and quit whining. Here are some limited samples for state or national options:
http://www.independenceminnesota.org/about-the-ip/history
http://www.libertarianparty.com/
http://www.americanmoderateparty.org/
Filed under: Politics Tagged: | Centrist, CNN, Conservative, Democrat, Indepependent, liberal, moderate, name, Only, Politics, primary, republican, right, RINO, Third, united states, Vote
My idea would best be a “if and only if” situation. It probably be better to move the election to November (if and only if the democrats and libertarians don’t have a candidate). It is not a big deal except if the town council votes to raise my taxes, I would like to express my dissatisfaction without committing to a party.
I’d have a problem with anyone at the town-level running linked to a national party. Each town has unique needs which cannot be addressed by a donkey, elephant, or any other national animal.
You forgot one that is gaining in popularity…
http://www.modernwhig.org/
A very good post…..I was just making a similar comment over at Why We Worry…..
Thanks for pointing that out. Forgot about them.
Independent voters are United States citizens registered to vote. When the United States began, all voters in the United States were independent voters. There were no organized political parties until the election of 1800, and that is why there are still independent voters today. If the opposing party is not going to have a candidate oppose the party candidate as an independent candidate.
I have to agree as I figured that is the way it should be. However, I do have issues with the status quo due to my personal experiences. If I want to be able to vote for whom I want to represent me on the town and county level, I have to be a republican. Democrats do not bother fielding candidates where I live. That means the winner is determined in a primary that excludes independents. If the opposing party is not going to have a candidate, maybe primary should be open to all?
I can empathize, but I think your idea creates too much of a gray area. I am in an area that rarely elects anything other than Democrats. I opt not to vote for most of them, and will sometimes write in candidates (why not me, right?). I additionally support several other party movements in my area through time and presence. This is in partly how things have slowly changed in my normally very blue area.
But let’s look at you again. Would being able to vote in the primary (assuming there are multiple challengers in one party at that level) make any change? If so, would you be getting a different product? Also, isn’t this the reason people form parties? To attract and support like-minded people?
I personally haven’t found that one-size-fits-all party for my issues, but understand that some have. Some are just plain sheep, and it sounds like you have plenty in your area — please don’t take offense at that!
I think the the one size fits all is pretty accurate because like in my area most voters are one issue voters, whether it is God or guns or marriage or (pick one)…they seldom look past the one issue that they find attractive….
I personally am a consers and a lib and a radical…it will depend on the issue and for that reason I have a helluva time finding a good candidate…