The United States House of Representatives has 435 voting members. In 291 of the districts (66.9% of the districts), independent voters can vote in all major party congressional primaries, without having to join any party. In another 20 districts, independent voters can vote in any major primary but they must join that party at the polls on primary day. In another 7 districts, independents can vote in Democratic primaries without joining the Democratic Party, but they can’t vote in Republican primaries.
States in which independent voters can’t vote in either major party’s congressional primary without joining a party have 137 districts out of the 435.
The reason this data is worth mentioning is that many proponents of top-two primaries repeatedly publish misinformation. For example, John Opdycke, President of OpenPrimaries, has this op-ed in The Hill of July 7. The op-ed says “most congressional representatives are elected via an electoral system that empowers the few and excludes the many.”
The op-ed also implies that “the vast majority” of voters are excluded from major party congressional primaries. Actually, 73.3% of U.S. voters in the states with registration by party are registered members of parties; 26.7% are registered as independents, or as members of unqualified parties.
Finally, the op-ed says the California top-two system caused an end to late budgets. Actually California’s legislature was able to pass state budgets on time after 2010 because in November 2010, California voters passed Proposition 25, which eliminated the requirement that the budget pass with a two-thirds vote in each house of the state legislature. Once that happened, it was easy for the Democratic majority in each house to pass the budget favored by the Democratic legislators. The top-two system had no impact on whether the budget passed on time.
Thanks for clearing this up, Richard.
In all 50 States, a voter may contribute to their preferred candidate for all offices and all elections. In all 50 States, a voter may put up a yard sign or display a bumper sticker for their preferred candidate for all offices and all elections. In all 50 States, a voter may offer verbal support for their preferred candidate for all offices and all elections.
In only three States may a voter actually vote for their preferred candidate for all offices and all elections.
ALL 99 houses of ALL 50 States are nonstop ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander regimes — since 1776.
The 3 USA gerrymander systems stuck on top of the State systems in 1789.
It shows. More and more communism and/or fascism in so-called *politics* in the U.S.A.
See Germany 1929-1933.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Jim Riley’s comment is not accurate. In most states, write-in votes are permitted for all primary and general elections.
The 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 is still in the nearly dead USA Const. —
How many write-in votes in 1866-1868 ???
It is accurate. In Louisiana, California, and Washington, all voters can vote for all qualified candidates in all elections.
ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders in ALL States –
including LA, CA and WA.
The top 2 JUNK stuff is one more EVIL distraction from the nonstop gerrymander ROT since 1776 in the USA.
Jim Riley, you are wrong about California and the AIP County
Central Committee Election in 2016.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
American Independent Party of California
Jim Riley, California voters in November 2014 were forced to vote for Jerry Brown or Neel Kashkari for Governor, or they could not vote for anyone for Governor. I wanted to vote for a candidate for Governor who favored legalizing marijuana. I was not permitted to do so. I lost my vote. I had never before missed voting in all elections since I had turned 21, but in November 2014, because I was not permitted to vote for the candidates of my choice, I didn’t vote at all.
You or any other Californian voter could have voted for any of the 18 candidates running for governor in the primary.
The purpose of an election in a republic is for the electorate to make a collective decision as to whom will temporarily serve as public officers. The voters collectively preferred Jerry Brown and Neel Kashkari for the office of governor, and they made their final choice between those two in November.
You could have participated in that final collective decision. It was your right not too. You have no constitutional right to “vote” for “Donald Duck”, “Industrial Hemp”, or some person who you believe would be a better governor than Brown or Kashkari.
I maintain that every qualified voter in the United States has a constitutional right to vote for anyone he or she wishes. My opinion is based on the First Amendment, which outlaws laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” A vote is speech. A vote tells the government and the public what the voter thinks.
If the government can tell the people whom they can or can’t vote for, then the government is the boss over the people. The founding principle of the United States says that the people are the boss over the government.
The right to vote includes the right of choice for whom to vote. In Iran, the law permits the mullahs to control who can run for public office. Do you disagree with the election law of Iran? If so, why?
In North Korea, the election law forbids more than one candidate from running for any seat. Do you disagree with the North Korea law, and, if so, why?
Is it a violation of the 1st Amendment that you can only vote for the governor of California for a few hours every four years?
Is it a violation of the 1st Amendment that you can only vote once in an election, or that you must go to a certain location to vote, or that you must mark your ballot in a certain way for it to be counted, or that you must register in advance, or you can’t have your vote made public.”
Imagine if you wanted to express your opinion that marijuana should be decriminalized, and were told “Sorry Richard, it isn’t the right year.” So you put the duct tape back over your mouth. Three years later you come back and are told “Sorry Richard, it isn’t November”. You come back a few months later, and are told “Sorry Richard, it isn’t Tuesday” or “Sorry Richard, it is Tuesday, but free speech Tuesday was last week” or “Sorry Richard, it is Tuesday, but there hasn’t been a Monday this month.” Or it is too early or too late, or you are not at _your_ free speech venue, or you can’t wear a t-shirt advocating your position. But let’s say that you happened to arrive at the right time, on the right date, at the only place in the whole word where you are permitted to speak. You are then told to go to one of the voting booths, and write your speech out, but to be sure not to identify yourself, speak aloud, and to then deposit your speech in a ballot box.” The speech overseer then gives you a sticker that read, “I spoke today.”
What kind of Potemkin free speech is this?
A vote is not speech.
Richard makes the appropriate comparison here:
“If the government can tell the people whom they can or can’t vote for, then the government is the boss over the people. The founding principle of the United States says that the people are the boss over the government.
The right to vote includes the right of choice for whom to vote. In Iran, the law permits the mullahs to control who can run for public office. Do you disagree with the election law of Iran? If so, why?”
Now, instead of the Guardian Council pre-approving candidates, we here have essentially allowed “mainstream” or median voters to tell those with minority opinions how they can (or can’t) vote under top-two. It benefits the pre-existing powerful factions and conformist voters over minority and dissident voices, and deprives many voters their chance to state their true preference at the most meaningful stage of the election process: the general election.
It is a soft coup by the two major parties. Richard recently wrote an op-ed about the inability of minor party candidates to make it on to the general election ballots under top-two. In some cases, voters have a choice between two members of the same party.
I want to know, what is the argument for restricting choice in the general election? Also, what happens down the road, when minor parties cease to be qualified parties because they do not garner enough votes because of their elimination from the November ballot and their loss of popular support via ballot exclusion?
Anyone who thinks our two-party system is working just fine and ought to be cemented in place has every right to support top-two. People who recognize the importance of political pluralism, of adding new and minority voices into our political discourse, and who want voters to have real choices are more than justified in opposing it.
California’s restrictions on candidates expressing a party preference for a “qualified” party are unconstitutional and unnecessary under Top 2.
The underlying premise behind party qualification is to decide which parties should get a state-funded primary to choose their nominee, or have automatic access to the general election.
Under Top 2 ballot qualification is based on the individual.
You are compartmentalizing the “general election” as some separate isolated event. The US constitution says that federal representatives should be chosen every two years. There is similar language in every state constitution – some states have 4-year terms, others have elections in odd years, but those are minor details. Every 2 or 4 years, the voters choose who represents them in Congress of their legislature.
The word primary is an adjective meaning first. A primary election is the first stage of a multi-stage election process.
If you wanted a voter who is representative of the electorate, you would choose the median voter. A voter who is 3 standard deviations away is an outlier. And the same is true of whom the voters collectively choose to represent them.
You are not mentioning federal laws that tell the states they must elect presidential electors in November, and they must elect members of congress in November. If states want a runoff for congress, it must be after November. Those laws were passed in the 19th century (1845 for president and 1872 for congress).
Do you think the 18th and 19th century caucuses and party meetings that nominated candidates for federal office were part of a “two-stage process”?
There are no federal laws requiring presidential electors to be elected. A State could adopt a system of appointment by the legislature, where the legislators would not have been elected in November. Or a State could choose an intermediate body similar to that used in Tennessee in the late 18th Century. The members of this appointive body could then meet at the time set by Congress for making appointments.
A Top 2 election is not a runoff. If your supposition about the Top 2 election being a runoff and violating federal time regulations were viable, wouldn’t it have been challenged by now?
Historical usage of “primary” in the United States was as an initial or preliminary meeting, that is, a first or primary meeting. If a new party were being formed, a few organizers might hold a primary meeting to prepare for a second meeting. See for example the two meetings held in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 1 and March 20, 1854.
The word primary was also applied in Crawford County, Pennsylvania in 1842, when Democratic voters gathered in primary meetings in each township, and elected delegates to the county convention, where the actual nominations would be made. The first effort failed, and the county convention broke up. Later that election season, a second effort was made. At the primary meetings in each township, Democratic voters would vote for the nominees directly, with the county convention simply serving to tabulate the votes. The first meetings in the townships were not called primary meetings because the nominations were being decided then, but rather because they were the first stage. They were called direct primary meetings, as opposed to indirect primary meetings.
Congress always had authority to set the time for appointing presidential electors, and even the Continental Congress did so for the first election in 1789.
The Constitutional Convention was extra-constitutional in the sense that it went beyond its mandate to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Aware that the were cutting both the Continental Congress and legislatures out of the ratification process, they had convention president George Washington write a letter to the Continental Congress, requesting them to forward the proposed constitution to the States, and also keep track of ratifications.
In 1788, the Continental Congress received notice of ratification by the necessary nine States, and considered a preliminary schedule of (1) 1st Wednesday in December, 1788 for appointment of presidential electors; (2) 1st Wednesday in January, 1789 for meetings of electors in the respective States; and (3) 1st Wednesday in February, 1789 for meeting of Congress under the Constitution.
Virginia became the 10th State to ratify. But New York had yet to ratify, and the Continental Congress was meeting in New York City. Delegates from the three non-ratifying States abstained on the choice of the meeting place for Congress, and under the Articles of Confederation, abstention was the same as opposition. Eventually, New York ratified, and the Continental Congress muddled to a decision of New York City as the meeting place. By that time, the schedule had to be slipped a month, and the three key dates were the first Monday in January, February, and March, 1789.
The first Monday in March was March 4, 1789, which established that date as the beginning date of congressional and presidential terms, until passage of the 22nd Amendment.
Congress took a while to establish a quorum in both houses, which was necessary before they could meeting in joint session and count the electoral votes. George Washington did not arrive in New York City until June, so the United States did not have a president for its first three months.
Since it was anticipated that the House would ordinarily be choosing the President from among the Top 5, it was decided that the votes for the 2nd presidential term in 1793 would be counted by the outgoing Congress, leaving time before March 4, for the House to choose a president if necessary.
Based on setting a date for counting the electoral votes, the date for the meeting of the electors was set, and the time for appointment was set to be in November. At the time, in many States, it was the legislature that appointed the electors, and Congress was loathe to set a meeting date for the legislatures.
Over time all States, but South Carolina, switched to popular elections for determining elector appointments. As a practical matter, the elections were in early November, to give time for a statewide canvass, and time for electors to be notified and have time to travel to the December meeting in their State.
The 1845 law set a single date for appointment (election) of electors. The odd construction of the first Tuesday after the first Monday was to provide a fixed period to the meeting date of the presidential electors in December.
The 1845 law clearly recognized that States could hold a runoff election. And of course, States would be free to establish direct primaries for presidential elections, including Top 2. Based on the Arizona redistricting commission ruling, this could even be done by the initiative process.
Congress considered permitting South Carolina to make its appointment later in the month, but eventually forced the legislature into special session earlier in the month.
I vote in fayette county. When I went in to vote for sherrif, mayor, etc….., I was asked by the lady, “are you voting for Democrat or Republican?” I replied, “I’d rather not respond to that because I don’t think it’s anyone’s business. I choose to vote independent.” She told me that I would have to choose between Democrat or Republican or I will not be allowed to vote during the presidential election. I replied, “we’ll, what if I wanted to vote for a candidate who was running as independent?” She replied, “it doesn’t matter, the rules now are, you have to choose between the two during the county election if you want to eligible to vote during the presidential election.” My question is this; Is there any truth to what this lady was talking about???? Someone please help me with this? Please respond to this comment.
Several states have a Fayette County. Please tell us what state you live in.
My husband is registered as independent. Can he vote Republican in primary for 2016?
My husband is registered as independent. Can he vote Republican at primary in 2016?
From Maryland..
As an Independent living in Massachusets, am I able to vote in both presidential primaries, understanding that I will have to declare R or D, as appropriate, before I vote and redeclare as Independent on exiting polls? Or would this be considered inappropriate or not allowed?
This is a lie. In massachusetts I was a registered Independent voter, during the Gov election a few years back I was made to un-enroll then register for the candidates party I was voting for
Same goes for the presidential primary I have to register for whatever party I want to vote for ..so much for anonymity I guess aye folks ?
Not on the list when I went to vote I was told I HAD to register on one or the other parties “Republican or democrat in order to vote
What this does is it takes away the ability to vote for any individual It stinks because I like parties on both sides hence the reason I registered as an Independant in the first place.
In the end it is all the same game… they both play for the same team & we are just picking the home jersey of the away jersey . God forbid they put all the candidates on one sheet and let us pick who we want.regardless of party. After all it is supposed to be the voter’s choice. Yet every year I’m noticing more and more regulations regulating my freedom of choice Regardless of all these regulations and the importance of an election I’ve still never , EVER been asked to show an ID.
Rick, the officials at your polling place may not have understood the Massachusetts law. America Votes 30, concerning the 2012 election, says on page 221 in the section on Massachusetts, “Unenrolled voters could participate in either party’s primary.”
So to be clear, can an American Independent vote in the GOP presidential primary in California in 2016?
It looks like the RNC had to have submitted approval a few months before the primary and they failed to do it, however the democrat, libertarian and American independent parties will allow an independent to vote for their candidate.
Si, what that means us the Republican party wants us to vote Democrat? Nt Republcan? They are losing votes
Ever since 1968, there has been a ballot-qualified party in California called the American Independent Party. George Wallace created it as a vehicle to get on the ballot for president that year. So when you say, “An American Independent”, I am not sure if you are referring to a registered member of that party, or a true independent. A member of the American Independent Party can only choose the American Independent Party primary ballot, which has 7 choices on it. A true independent can choose a Democratic ballot, an American Independent Party ballot, or a Libertarian ballot. But a true independent can’t have a Republican ballot. However Californians can switch from independent status to being a member of a party up until May 22, 2016. The primary is June 7.
In Louisiana today 50,000 plus voters were not able to vote today in the primary because they are registered independent.
Just answer the question: As a registered independent in California, can I vote for a presidential candidate in the primary election on June 7, 2016?
I live in New Jersey and i received a letter from Daniel Frankel commissioner of registration for east Brunswick and they stated that since i registered as green i can’t vote in the next primary election. i personally believe that both parties democratic and republican are corrupt. i just wanted to know if this is legal?
Yes. No court has ever invalidated a law like that. In 2000 the US Supreme Court said parties have a right to exclude members of other parties from helping choose their nominees.
I’m still amazed that it’s legal to have partisan primaries that TAXYPAYERS pay for. Its a huge political donation by the state, along with advertising.
Political parties in the U.S. did not want government-administered primaries. Primaries were forced on them. In several states parties even went to court to try to say they were unconstitutional. No other country has goverment-administered primaries and requires parties to use them.
Government-administered primaries were imposed by legislators who were affiliated with political parties.
Argentina requires nomination by primaries.
Legislators are not generally party officers. Sometimes party officers and state legislators from their own party are completely at odds. That was certainly true in California in the 1980’s. The parties sued the state and won a US Supreme Court victory in Eu v San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee. That victory struck down many laws telling parties what they could and couldn’t do. Those laws were written by state legislators from those same parties.
Party bosses are generally not representative of the parties. Of course party bosses in the early 20th Century would oppose any sort of reform.
Eu v San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, overruled state law that said party bosses could not be active participants in primaries. It didn’t say that a state could not require nomination by primary. The right to vote supersedes any rights of party bosses.
It was not any Green Party legislators who sought regulation of internal Green Party matters (in Parts 6 and 7 of the Elections Code).
The Green Party section of the California election code was written by Green Party leaders, and it suits the party’s desires. The old California laws dictating that all parties had to rotate the state chair between a northern and a southerner, dictating that parties had to have their state conventions in Sacramento, dictating that parties could not endorse candidates in their own primaries, dictating that parties could not endorse or oppose candidates in non-partisan elections, were written by politicians who wanted to put the party organizations themselves in handcuffs. There is a reason the Copenhagen Agreement of the Helsinki Accords mandates that governments not merge political parties with the government.