John --
Hey New Hampshire, we love you, but what are you doing? Or more precisely, what are your elected officials trying to do? As the rest of the country is beginning to embrace democracy-fortifying concepts like open primaries and ranked-choice voting, some lawmakers want to take the Granite State backwards, proposing legislation that would end the state’s proud tradition of open primaries. The bill <[link removed]> would require residents to register with a political party at least four months before the state primaries in order to vote in that primary.
New Hampshire isn’t alone. Other states are attempting to thwart progress on the electoral reform front as well. In Texas <[link removed]>, a similar bill proposes changing the state’s open primary system so voters can only vote in the primary election of the party they’re affiliated with. Unaffiliated voters would be listed as an independent and unable to vote in any party's primary. And even in Alaska <[link removed]>, a leader in the electoral reform movement, three proposed bills in the state House and/or Senate call to eliminate open primaries and ranked-choice voting and restore the state’s previous voting approach.
What’s going on here? It probably has something to do with this: Gallup polling <[link removed]> indicates that independent identification is at historically high levels. Political independents (41%) greatly outnumber Republican (28%) and Democratic (28%) identifiers, and that’s a threat to both parties, especially in such polarizing times. Independent voters are unpredictable—they make choices based not on rank tribal loyalty but a complex mix of factors, including a candidate’s experience, ideas, and trustworthiness.
One look at today’s news <[link removed]>, and it’s easy to see why the parties fear greater participation by independents. In a system that gives independents a real voice, the parties would have to work a lot harder to identify, develop, and advance quality candidates in order to maintain a competitive edge. And that’s exactly why these reforms are such a threat to them—and so critical to American democracy.
- Andrew Yang, political outsiders, want to get rid of partisan primaries in NYC —City & State New York <[link removed]>
- <[link removed]>Bill proposing ranked-choice voting is filed in Texas —KRLD <[link removed]>
- <[link removed]>Will CT adopt ranked-choice voting? It's possible, legislators say —The CT Mirror <[link removed]>
- <[link removed]>Yalies, local groups push for ranked-choice voting —Yale Daily News <[link removed]>
- <[link removed]>Bill would expand ranked-choice voting to School Board elections —Sun Gazette <[link removed]>
OTHER NEWS & VIEWS
Arizona has a plan to eradicate extremism
A new, nonpartisan coalition in Arizona called Save Democracy Arizona aims to stamp out extremism through election reform. The group is planning to put a question on the 2024 ballot that would open the state's primaries, allowing voters to cast their ballots for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation. The state’s current semi-closed primary system requires independents to register with a party to vote in presidential elections and request a ballot from a single party to vote in that party's nonpresidential primaries. Only 10% of independents actually do this, according to Save Democracy. The new system would give the 90% a voice and ultimately result in greater representation. —NBC News <[link removed]>
Kelley: The problem with primaries
“What’s wrong about the six states—like Iowa—who have a partially open primary or other states who embrace a similar closed system? Very simply, it permits the far-right wing and far-left wing candidates and their respective extremist minions to protect and elect oddballs to run for office. Meanwhile, the truly independent voters are left on the sideline without much say. Partisan primaries…disenfranchise voters. It’s a form of voter suppression and dissuades independents from voting. Low primary turnout means fewer voters are choosing their representatives, giving disproportionate influence to a small subset of voters.” —Doris Kelley in Times-Republican <[link removed]>
Brack: The practical value of RCV
“Election officials don’t have to run another whole election, meaning they don’t have to open precincts or hire a huge temporary staff to run voting sites. Instead, voters make their picks in the general election and, thanks to computers, votes are calculated relatively quickly when no one gets a majority on the first count. State officials say a statewide runoff can cost up to $1.5 million. And with more costs for county election commissions, South Carolina taxpayers could save at least $2 million per primary and general election by adopting a new way to vote using the same voting machines.” —Andy Brack in Statehouse Report <[link removed]>
The voting reforms supported by Forward—open, nonpartisan primaries; ranked-choice voting and other multi-choice alternatives; and independent redistricting commissions—change the electoral incentives, rewarding unifying candidates who appeal to the broadest cross-section of voters. They eliminate the spoiler effect, giving candidates outside the two major parties a chance to compete with them on equal footing. And most importantly, they give everyone a voice, ensuring that winning candidates most fully represent the preferences of the population they serve.
All the best,
The Forward Party Team
-=-=-
Forward Party - PO Box 9172, Fredericksburg, VA 22403, United States
This email was sent to
[email protected]. To stop receiving emails: [link removed]
-=-=-
Created with NationBuilder - [link removed]
