Open Primaries is an organization based in New York city that is dedicated to depriving political parties of their core function, the right to nominate candidates. Open Primaries supports top-two and top-four initiatives, in which candidates qualify for the general election ballot based on their popularity in a preceding primary, rather than by winning the nomination of a party.
On November 29, 2020, Open Primaries released a 60-page report, titled “The Next Great Migration, the Rise of Independent Voters.” The thesis of the report is “Independent voters are the fastest growing segment of the electorate.” It uses registration data to make this point. However, the report’s registration data for each state is out-of-date. In no case does the report have any data more recent than May 2020.
Between February 2020 and October 2020, the fastest growing segment of the electorate was the Libertarian Party, if one uses percentages to measure growth. Libertarian registration went up 43,027 voters between February and October, for a 7.06% rise. The Republican Party gained 1,757,462 voters during the same period, growth of 5.28%. The Democratic Party gained 1,390,132 voters, up 3.04%. Independents only grew by 166,577, which was only up .50%.
It is certainly true that independent voters greatly increased their share of the registration between 2005 and 2020. The Report emphasizes how things have changed since 2005. The Report lists the states that now ask about party choice on voter registration forms, but it does does not include Arkansas on that list. Arkansas does ask about party registration. If the Report had recognized Arkansas as a state with party registration, that would have bolstered the Report’s thesis, because a large majority of Arkansas voters are registered independents.
Open Primaries was founded by leaders of the New Alliance Party, which dissolved itself in 1994 and helped create the Patriot Party. After the Reform Party was founded in September 1995, the Patriot Party entered the Reform Party. Its activists supported Pat Buchanan for the Reform Party nomination in 2000. After the 2000 election, they left the Reform Party and created the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, and then they formed Open Primaries.
NOOOO PRIMARIES
EQUAL NOM PETS FOR INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES.
It is not a legitimate function of government to keep track of the political beliefs of citizens, nor to organize political parties and their nomination activities.
If the Democratic or Republican clubs want to support the election of endorsed candidates they are free to do so under the Open Primary.
The government doesn’t need to organize political parties for parties to form. When a group of citizens with common interests unite to form a party, they have a inherent right to put forth a nominee for themselves without having to compete against other parties in an “open primary”. Inter-party competition is the point of general elections, not primaries. Let the parties nominate who they want, and stay out of it Jim!
Anyone can feel free to phone me on messenger or on my cell phone anytime you want to hear about the only democratically legitimate voting system known; Hagenbach-Bishoff Method for names and Ogle Method for decision-making.
The math of limited voting and ranked choice voting in multiple-winner election districts of names for perfection in every election, hasn’t been improved since 1900s, with the innovation of the Hagenbach-Bishoff Method by Swiss Physicist Eduard Hagenbach-Bishoff.
The Ogle Method for decision-making is newer.
There is no perfect mathematical system but one, under the concept of one-man-one-vote and one whole vote per paper ballot for names, but unfortunately it’s not in the US Constitution yet.
For decision-items for example, the 2/3rds vote for impeachment is incorrect, 50% plus one vote is the best.
Man, you are full of rancid beans and green baloney. The Trump Method for decision making is way way way more legit. It is the only mathematically correct method.
@Winger: “The thesis of the report is “Independent voters are the fastest growing segment of the electorate.”
In Idaho, this blanket statement “thesis” does NOT apply. In fact, Unaffiliated registrations are the fastest DECLINING segment of the Idaho electorate. Proof of point (reported on ID SoS Elections website):
January 2, 2014 Unaffiliated 440,042
January 3, 2015 Unaffiliated 389,593
January 5, 2016 Unaffiliated 365,018
January 3, 2017 Unaffiliated 347,637
January 2, 2018 Unaffiliated 306,158
January 8, 2019 Unaffiliated 307,374
January 24, 2020 Unaffiliated 308,784
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian registrations (as yes even CP-Idaho registrations) have expanded–at the expense of the Unaffiliated total registration. Ergo, the “thesis” is incorrect for Idaho.
I expect Floyd would be at least half-right around the country.
That said, Open Primaries is otherwise clueless on top-two, at least. The duopoly loves top two precisely because it cuts independent and third-party candidates out of general elections.
My one question is: Are they that dumb of their own accord or is somebody paying them to be that dumb?
In terms of the percentage of Idaho’s total registered voters, while Unaffiliated losses may have stabilized in the past year, Idaho’s Unaffiliated still remain in steep decline. The January 2021 percentage of Unaffiliated in the total State electorate, will most likely show a continuing decrease.
Numbers current as of November 2, 2020 have our statewide Unaffiliated at 322,983. However, the overall total of registered voters in Idaho greatly expanded, to 1,010,991. [E.g. the percent of the total Idaho registered electorate represented by Unaffiliated is now 31.9%.]
Again, the thesis of Open Primaries that is being used to strip state political parties of their right of association, is demonstrably false in Idaho.
January 2, 2014 Unaffiliated 59.3%
January 3, 2015 Unaffiliated 51.2%
January 5, 2016 Unaffiliated 49.4%
January 3, 2017 Unaffiliated 40.0%
January 2, 2018 Unaffiliated 38.2%
January 8, 2019 Unaffiliated 35.4%
January 24, 2020 Unaffiliated 35.4%
November 2, 2020 Unaffiliated 31.9%
More/Less statists —
RED commie Donkeys and BLUE fascist Elephants VERSIONS.
WHICH VERSIONS ACTUALLY VOTE MORE — PCTS ???
@MCUSAP,
When a group of citizens decide to support a candidate, they go to the courthouse and they are counted to determine if there is sufficient support to place their candidate on the first (primary) ballot.
It does not matter if it is the same group of citizens who place another candidate on the primary ballot for another office. And it does not matter if the candidate was successful or not at previous elections. To be placed on the ballot simply requires a demonstration of support.
The state should not care how your group organizes itself.
“primary” means first. It does not mean “segregated partisan nominating event”
Dissociative disorder–mental disorder that involves experiencing a disconnection and lack of continuity between thoughts.
Yep. You got that. Ever thought about fixing it?
FYI my comment was directed @ Demo Rep
Like Demo Rep, I would prefer NOOOO Primaries, to either Top-2 or Top-4. Ranked choice voting makes primaries or runoffs redundant, anyway.
@Ziobro Having read these treads, and the various views, my opinion is that too many hereon fail to grasp the basis of government in these United States.
We are a republic, not a democracy.
And it occurs to me that by calling for absolute democracy, those who do would bring into effect the very conditions that the republic was designed to assuage.
Renovation is fine, up to a point. But at some point ill-conceived renovations end up mistakenly tearing out load bearing walls under the assumption there were merely facades. And that, sir, is a dangerous reconstruction.
Remember too: the epitome of a democracy is found in what was once called “Jeddart (or Jethart”) Justice”…which is to say a lynch mob. It being democratic, to a T.
@Walter
I’d actually prefer ranked choice with partisan nominees (+ independents) as I think that works better for creating stronger parties, but I can live with one round RCV. It’s funny how the “open primaries” crowd has shifted their proposals in the last decade. Used to be top 2, then top 4, now they’ve already abandoned that and want top 5! It’s at least an indirect admission that top 2 has been a failure.
I didn’t know the founders of Open Primaries supported Pat Buchanan though. Given how far right he is, I find the claim they want more “moderates” elected pretty amusing in light of that fact.
That’s an interesting transition – from the New Alliance Party to the Reform Party. From socialism to a party founded by a billionaire. I guess they were both populist?
@MWG,
Once you start having partisan nominees you get into the issue of which parties may make nominations and which are excluded. The big parties make it relatively easy to qualify for their subsidized primaries, and make it hard for independents to qualify.
The only solution is to have all candidates qualify as individuals. This is the NECESSARY component of the plan.
Candidates should not be able to purchase ballot access. That does nothing to screen cranks. Instead require a modest number of supporters show up at courthouses and be counted. This likely gives parties some advantage since they can organize the event, but it is still accessible to independents.
I have no problem with majority election in the primary. Instead of Top 2 or 4, let candidates with a cumulative 80% advance, and let trailing candidates coalesce their support.
@ Jim Riley
Nah. There’s far better ways of reforming ballot access than blowing up partisan primaries. Most advanced democracies have low barriers of access to the ballot for their general election. They also all have partisan nominees. I think Canada’s signature requirement is something like 20 signatures I’d be fine having a system where parties themselves are registered for ballot access and the parties held their own “firehouse primaries” to select candidates. Along with establishing an independent elections commission like most other democracies have. I’m also not interested in “screening cranks”. I don’t think it’s the role of democracy to arbitrarily limit participation.
That said, I could compromise with a one round ranked choice election. I don’t think it’d be as good as one with partisan primaries but it wouldn’t have the most significant downsides of jungle primaries. I like the Nevada proposal that was one round while still retaining some role for parties in selecting nominees.
I don’t appreciate my comments not being published here considering I have 25 years of electing the 538-member Electoral College under pure proportional representation (PPR).
PPR is like nothing anyone can describe here, fortunately I’ve been counting paper ballots under pure proportional representation for 25 years and I’m still good friends with everyone as a testament to the unity of 538-member Electoral College where every threshold is exactly the same across the board coast-to-coast.
Everyone can try to get the flavor by seeing the top name in each party/independents.
http://www.pprelectoralcollege.com
Please be sure to phone us if you see a need for corrections or improvements.
@ Jim Riley
How can a party not be controlled by the government if the Government is keeping them off the general election ballot? “Primary” Elections are almost universally understood in the US to refer to intraparty elections, not interparty ones. It seems that you merely hate parties for existing, and while most people on this site have issues with the main two parties, this is not the case for the numerous third parties.
Remember that prior to the state printing of ballots there were still parties, even though there were no ballot access laws? The reason the US saw multiple parties over our first century was precisely because people came together and formed them. If the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans joined together and blocked third parties from appearing on the ballot because of top-two, we’d still have those parties today. People were instead free to organize their own parties without the government limiting who people could vote for, and this allowed third parties to actually succeed.
Jim, any open primary system that does not have a mechanism for alternative parties to have reasonable access to have candidates in the general election, which is the real election, is a tool of voter suppression plain and simple. It doesn’t have to be an impossible vote test or a massive signature requirement, a primary system that can be observed in practice to kick virtually all alternative candidates to the curb is just as undemocratic.
With 538 Electors, one per Congressional district, two for each Senator and three for DC, the possibility of each Elector to pick a different word for being by their name is possible today.
Unfortunately those who love the single-winner election district power grabbers, usually egomaniacal chauvinistic psychopathic males, we end up blocking everyone from free speech except for the insiders who control the ballot just like the Oklahoma LP party bosses did in 2020 using Opavote and a threshold of 50% plus one vote.
While nine female L.P. Prez candidates had filed FEC Form 2, plus one write-in name Eva Gebby Espinosa of California, the OK party bosses placed only one women on their internal ballot and used our winning campaign message incorrectly in a power-grab against all other nine seeking equal time and equal treatment.
No more to Libertarian Party bosses’ one-party voting system.
Our team has been bringing the correct math for pure proportional representation for more than 25 consecutive years and the LP won’t even put our names on their ballot so that their membership will never hear about the competition and the insider bosses control everything top down.
The LP party bosses will be hearing about this for the rest of my life and I understand the teamwork, the psychology, and the math, and my name must be redeemed from the damage done by google registrant Sergey Brin.
The LP bosses will continue to block and be just like Brin, but in the US Constitution there are only multiple-winner election districts from Prez/VP and Senator and Congressional state elections,so eventually the pure proportional representation Electoral College will be a victor with the correct math.
Then women, minority interest groups, 3rd parties and independents, will one day win pure proportional representation.
All men should be chauvinistic. In both senses, as in Derek Chauvin who did the right thing and is a true hero. The L.P. Will be banned. There will be a one party GOP SYSTEM. The only correct math is the TRUMP method whereby everyone votes for TRUMP and HE gets all votes, then appoints HIS underlings to RULE. Google and the lootertarians party will both be taken down with on a few months. They will no longer exist. Their bosses will be in hell with their master Satan. Women and minority groups will be personal property of TRUMP and second and third parties and independents will no longer exist. We will all be happy and anyone who is not will quite literally be sent to hell.
FW-
Democracy = MAJORITY RULE — DIRECT OR INDIRECT
Monarchy/oligarchy = Minority Rule, direct or indirect
NONSTOP minority rule gerrymanders since 1776 in USA.
REAL ***democracy*** only when voters vote on issues — often rigged.
Main media too math stupid to detect what’s what
— thus the winner/loser sports stuff — with personality *leader* cults.
Jim Riley wrote, “Once you start having partisan nominees you get into the issue of which parties may make nominations and which are excluded. The big parties make it relatively easy to qualify for their subsidized primaries, and make it hard for independents to qualify.”
Disagree – Look at Great Britain. They have have partisan nominees and they do not have the ballot access issues we have here in the US. The party or independent candidate puts up a deposit amount they are on. The state does not have a hand in who the parties choose.
There are ways around the mess we have here in the US and it most certainly does not require non-partisan elections of some form of top-xx type elections.
@MWG,
US congressional districts have about 7 times the population of Canadian ridings. The number I have in mind, 1/20 of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote in a district is relatively speaking of the same magnitude. It is not an arbitrary limit to require some actual support, beyond ability to write a check. The Washington gubernatorial primary had 35 candidates. If the candidates had to find 1682 supporters the field would be limited to those who had some actual serious chance of competing. An average congressional district would require 169 supporters, a legislative district 43.
Those who show up at the courthouse would not have to be a “member” of a political party. Do you think that political parties don’t exist in Louisiana, or that they are uninvolved in non-partisan city elections?
What advantages do you see for zoological primaries (so named because the candidates and voters are confined to cages).
@MCUSAP,
The state should be indifferent to whether or not political parties exist. This official indifference should not be interpreted as love or hate.
An Open Primary in no way prevents new parties from forming.
@CP,
What makes an election “real”?
@EL,
Great Britain did not have party labels on ballots until fairly recently. They are hardly a necessary component of elections.
Parliamentary candidates require a petition and a deposit. Political parties may assist in that activity.
ONE voter nom pets — via internet, media, ads.
NOOOO party anything.
Mail them in.
IE – any *party* would become its candidates and any lurking party Platform — which might actually mean something.
If you are going to have open primaries, at the very least parties should own their own party labels, and no one should be allowed to use that label on any ballot without the party’s permission. If they are willing to allow more than one candidate on the ballot with their “label” that is up to them. On the other hand, they have a perfect right as well to allow only one candidate to use their “label” on an open primary ballot, if they so choose.
https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/rcv.html#RCV
ME RCV info – 2020
The petition to get on for House of Commons in Britain is only 10 signatures.
This link seems to suggest that Britain started putting party labels on ballots in late 1968.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1968/dec/10/use-of-political-descriptions-in
Jim, the real election is when the largest number of voters show up to participate and have the expectation that they will be choosing the person who will hold the office rather than merely narrowing the field.
If NOOO party labels — then zillion Qs from usual suspect good govt groups [googoos].
BUT would require at least SOME voters with SOME brains
— thus — total opposition from RED commie Donkey LOGO hacks.
See the Donkey — Vote the Donkey.
MICH 2018 CONST AMDT – REQUIRED TO HAVE PARTY NAME / LOGO STUFF.
2020 DATA MIA FOR MOMENT –
WILL BE USED FOR 2021-2022 GERRYMANDERS.
@Jim Riley
Stop being disingenuous. I mentioned the ballot requirements in other countries because they are deliberately set to be low barriers of entry onto the ballot. This is the exact opposite in most states here where ballot access for minor parties and independent are set to be deliberately high barriers of entry. Richard mentioned in the UK it’s 10 signatures. I’ve read somewhere in India it’s 2. This is because other democracies realize it’s undemocratic to throw artificial barriers of entry to participation in their democracies. If only we would figure that out here.
You mention the Washington “primary” having 35 candidates then ask me the benefit of partisan primaries. Well because they prevent clusterfuck ballots like that for one. I get it, “why should I have to pay for a partisan ballot?”. Personally I would prefer making them hold their own “firehouse primary” without any state assistance. Some states already do this I believe. This would actually bring us in line with the rest of the world by having the party itself decide their candidates and bringing them forth. It’s not like the jungle primary doesn’t act like a partisan primary in effect anyway, it’s just done way worse.
@WZ,
Who owns the party name?
Party bosses are free to make endorsements.
@RW,
And £500 deposi ($671).
@CP,
The Democratic Primary used to have ther most votes in Texas, and likely in Oklahoma as well.
Was it the “real election”. If an election is not real, is it fake?
POLITICS ASSUMED NAMES AS WITH PRIVATE BIZ ASSUMED NAMES ???
AARDVARK PARTY — AARDVARK CAR CORP.
ANY *** OVERTHROW A2Z GOVT PARTY *** ???
SEE OLDE 1917 COMMIE PARTY FACTIONS IN RUSSIA.
@MWG,
In the US ballot access barriers are high for independents and alternative parties because they are intended to serve as a barrier to challengers to those who write the laws. When candidates file as individuals as in the UK and India, the barriers are low because they apply to all candidates.
State-sponsored partisan primaries are the cause of barriers.
If I want to have a voice in who runs my county government, why must I forgo the opportunity to vote for my Congressman? Why can I can I contribute $$$ to a candidate, put up yard signs, and block walk, but not actually vote for them?
When the Louisiana legislature was debating restoring the Open Primary to congressional elections, the legislators could not conceive of the old system. Anybody who is younger thab 63 has never voted under the old system. The modern legislators could not conceive of a system where they were out campaigning and they thought they had found a supporter, only to find out they were in the wrong party and could not vote next week. “Oh … will you vote for me next month?
@Jim Riley
Yes, I know why they write the laws the way they do. You claimed jungle primaries were necessary for fair ballot access laws. We’re stating the absurdity of that claim by using international examples to the contrary. Then you proceed to go on irrelevant tangents. Plenty of states have open primaries without being jungle primaries.
Speaking of Louisiana, they’re seriously debating shitcanning the jungle primary there. Seems the legislators have finally gotten sick of the system. Good for them.
@ JR
Isn’t is obvious and appropriate that a party owns its own name?
Jim, the fact that for generations winning the Democrat primary in Oklahoma almost certainly winning the general does not negate the fact that the election with the largest number of people participating was the general election and, as much as it might have been a foregone conclusion, it was the election where the actual office holder was chosen. And I can think of at least one instance where even during that era there was an exception, in 1924 former Governor Jack Walton won the US Senate primary with a plurality of less than a third of the votes and went on to lose in the general election. The Legislature was so incensed they enacted a Ranked Choice Voting scheme but it was struck down because it required voters to rank second and third choices, after that they put runoffs in place.
@ Jim Riley wrote:
“Great Britain did not have party labels on ballots until fairly recently. They are hardly a necessary component of elections.”
You are moving the goal posts. And that is not what was in your original complaint. Your problem with primaries as you stated was “The big parties make it relatively easy to qualify for their subsidized primaries, and make it hard for independents to qualify.” Who cares what Britain did in the past – it is what they are doing now, which negates your problem. I gave an example of a current system where that is not an issue. Also, one where the state does not pay for the primary. It works and could be adopted here in the US.
@Eric L,
In Great Britain each /individual/ candidate qualifies for the ballot with a petition of 10 persons: a nominator, a seconder, and 8 subscribers, along with a deposit. Formally, the candidate does not apply, but rather accepts the nomination of the petitioners. A political party gives a candidate the authority to use the party name and emblems. A candidate might run as an independent, or might simply register a new party name. This particularly common in local elections, where a particular issue was being contest on a local council.
If this system were applied to the United States, the existing political parties would insist on keeping control of access to the ballot. This was what happened when the Australian ballot was adopted. Previously political parties would print ballots and distribute them to supporters. Candidates would pay bribes to be included, voters would be paid bribes to accept and use them. Supporters of opposing parties would be beaten up (or worse), their ballots burned or tossed in a ditch.
The Australian ballot meant that the government would print the ballots and distribute them to voters at the polls. But instead of party toughs, party lawyers would work to pass laws to keep opposing parties off the ballot. Primaries were created as an attempt to bypass party bosses, but political parties worked to regain control.
It is inherent in any system (at least in the USA) that any system where political parties have authority to formally name their candidates for a ballot they will make it difficult if not impossible for challengers to qualify.
An open primary system such as in Louisiana, California, Wasington, Nebraska (legislature), and now Alaska eliminates this control.
Individuals may still join together in political parties to recruit candidates, make endorsements, and provide financial and other support for candidates.