Why isn’t there a ballot that has all of the candidates listed with their respective party, allowing registered independents vote for who they want to vote for, regardless of the affiliated party. I’ve never understood this and I feel trapped into voting for someone I don’t want to vote for when I’m forced to vote one way or another.
Can someone explain it to me like I’m five why certain political parties won’t let independents vote in their primary elections?
PoliticsUser deleted comment
18d
I mean, I understand why the GOP doesn’t want us voting in their primaries, and I feel similarly about republicans influencing democrat primaries as well.
You can vote in “their” primaries. I’m a registered republican for that reason, although I’ve rarely/never voted for a republican in the general election.
User deleted comment
18d
I mean what do you expect, dogs to vote in the cat club?
No, I expect humans with different views on how to fix our problems should work together to find an optimal solution
RINOs unite!
Yeah, I did the same thing for a while. Voting in the 2016 GOP primary was more than I could stomach.
That’s what I do. Only downside is the embarrassment when you quietly tell the poll volunteer which party for the ballot, and she yells to the other volunteer to grab the “REPUBLICAN BALLOT” 🫠
I don't know about that. The glares I get from the other voters when they say "Democrat" in my little polling place.
I keep volunteering to work a polling place, and I'm sort of convinced my democrat registration is why I've never been contacted.
I have been registered independent every ever until this year so I could vote against the wack jobs
Same!
Oklahoma is a closed primary.
I get it, but at the same time, I do wish that in the event that a party primary is serving as the general election (such as my state senator, who has two or three primary opponents but no opponents from other parties), the ballot was treated as a general instead of a primary election. I get no vote, no say, in my state senator, because of closed party primaries. It isn't taxation without representation, but it sort of feels that way.
That is why a lot of folks register as Republican around here. In Oklahoma, you can be a RINO and help guide who actually gets on the general ballot.
you could run for office.
I appreciate the thought, but there's a huge difference in wanting to have a vote in who represents me, and wanting to be the representative. I could never sacrifice my morals enough or have enough patience to ever be a politician!
My point is, the only reason you don't have a vote in the matter is because no other party has put up any candidates.
You get a say, just because your candidate loses doesn’t mean your vote doesn’t matter
That's just it - I don't have a candidate, I don't get a say, and I don't get a vote, because I'm an Independent, and the only candidates in the election are Republican. There is no Democrat, Libertarian or Independent running, so whichever Republican won tonight, is the elected candidate. So while I understand the reasoning for a closed primary, it is a flawed system for when a primary becomes the de facto general election.
Well then congrats on being a new member of the Republican Party
I know the concept of not lying about myself is a foreign one to most Republicans (and all politicians, for that matter), but I'm not going to lie about my affiliation.
When there is no opposing party running, I believe the primary becomes the general, and all constituents deserve a vote (I believe this should be the case, regardless of party).
In the meantime, though, I chalk it up to Republicans being too cowardly to allow anything but their echo chamber to decide between them.
I like this. I am also registered independent, and had nothing I could vote on yesterday. Forcing the primary to become open in the case of no party opposition would be great.
I’m in the same boat. I’ve been googling this topic and am getting nowhere. Seems like a bunch of bullshit that certain residents of a county have no say in any of the local offices.
It’s not the party that won’t let you vote. It’s your state. Some states have closed primaries and some states have open primaries. in open primary states you can vote for any candidate, in closed primary states you can only vote for people in the party that you are registered with
Power. They want the candidate that is the "most" on their side. Independents would be more likely to vote for moderates.
I believe it is just state dependent. Some state parties allow independents to vote in primaries. Some don't.
For the parties that don't they would probably say that the candidate is more likely to represent their party if only members of their party vote in the primary.
Ideally, there would be at least one or two other viable candidates in other parties, but that is often not the case.
It is state by state since some states have ranked voting and no party primary (Alaska), others let state parties decide who can vote in their primaries, and a few states allow for independent voters to choice whether to vote in the dem or rep primary.
Yeah most states have closed primaries
That would be an election not a primary.
It's state by state. Oklahoma is a closed primary state, meaning people registered as a republican or democrat can only vote in that party's election unless the party at the state level says that they will allow people registered as an independent or with a different party to vote in their primary. Basically, if you're a registered democrat, you can only vote in the democratic primary. Unaffiliated (independent) voters can only vote in a primary if a political party allows them to.
The idea of a closed primary is intended to only allow registered members of a political party to vote in their primary to keep voters not affiliated with a certain party/with the party having the primary from voting in their election. People who are against open primaries (a primary where a voter affiliated with any party can say what primary they want to vote in at their polling place, no matter their affiliation (example: a democrat could vote in a republican primary. This is considered crossover voting. For example, if a district consistently elects a republican representative into office, a democrat/independent/other party affiliation can influence the outcome by voting in the primary for the candidate that aligns most with their views) tend to argue that allowing people who do not have a party affiliation to vote in whatever primary they want to is unfair, and even more unfair if it's in an open primary state when someone who typically affiliates themselves with the opposing party votes in their primary. Rules depend on the state, but for the most part, that is how open primaries work.
Arguments against open primaries include the crossover voting thing mentioned earlier in my example. Political parties do not want people not affiliated with their party voting in their primaries because they don't want the vote "muddied," so to speak, with voters of opposing views.
While Oklahoma democrats opened their primary votes up to independents, Republicans have not. Some can argue it has to do with crossover voting since, statistically speaking, independent voters tend to trend more left-leaning than right or the opposite, depending on your source. Most of those come from polling, so it's hard to tell. If Republicans were to open their primaries up to independent voters, this would open an avenue for everyone who wants to vote in a primary to get around party affiliation by registering as an independent and choosing which primary they want to vote in, similar to an open primary. Simply speaking, political parties (especially the party that controls the state) don't want people who are not affiliated with their party voting in their primary elections because they don't want the vote "muddied" by non affiliated voters. They only want, for example, Republicans voting in Republican primaries or Democrats voting in Democrat elections. So, the only way around this is to register as the controlling party (in Oklahoma, Republican) and vote for the candidate that aligns most with your views.
(Edit: clarified a point)
Excellent explanation
Thank you! I'm glad it was coherent since I wrote it fairly late at night.
Are you asking why independents can’t vote in all primaries? Or why they can’t choose one primary candidate for each office regardless of party?
I’d imagine neither party wants to incentivize people registering IND, and that’s exactly what that would accomplish.
I would like to choose which primary I’d like to vote in. Not choose one from each. I don’t understand why the republican and libertarian parties refused to allow independents to vote in their primaries this year. Only the Democratic Party allowed it this year. Would only get one ballot, but it would be nice to be able to choose.
Oklahoma is a closed primary state. The republican party doesn't want independents or dems voting in their primaries. They only want the 'right' fighting with the 'far right' in their primaries. If they let 'lefties' vote in their primaries, some moderate might actually have a chance, and they're not interested in any moderate getting elected. The dems allow independents to vote in their primaries. As a registered dem, I'd be onboard with all of us just registering as republicans, so we could potentially derail any 'far right' candidates and support moderate republicans, but everyone would have to do it for it to make any difference. So, I stay registered as a dem with little hope of my vote actually influencing any state offices until the general elections. State questions have been our only saving grace recently, and now the republicans have even found a way to shut those down.
I was registered as a republican for a long time but I got such a distaste for all of it al and went independent. And if the republicans would have let independents vote in their primary, there wouldn’t be a dead tie for sheriff in Carter county right now. It makes so sense. They were allowing people to change parties at the polling place. Had I known it would have been so close I would have change it. But that feels so wish-washy.
Look, it seems like you have a good nature and clear head about politics, and you wish we had a 'West Wing' political Utopia where we can all just vote for the candidate we think best represents our interests, and the right and left work together to reach compromises when they don't agree. It's not reality anymore...especially not here. The extremes of both parties don't want their candidates/agendas stifled by 'moderates' who may not adhere to a hard line agenda, and might, God-forbid, compromise with the other party. Look at James Lankford. Staunch conservative for decades. Reached across the aisle to hammer out a compromise on an immigration deal with Dems and Biden, and was immediately destroyed by Trump and his own party for it. Neither party is interested in centrists anymore, and the Oklahoma republicans are certainly not welcome to your Independent vote.
Because that's not the point of primary elections? If you don't want to be a member of a certain party, why should you get to decide who is elected as their candidate? I've never understood why independents complain about this. If you want to vote in primaries you can always pick a party and contribute to it!
Because otherwise you don’t get to vote in any meaningful way. The general is always going to be between two identical piles of shit that were handpicked by the very worst people in the universe, so the primaries are most people’s only opportunity to vote FOR someone.
I'd like to see the requirement that if a party uses public equipment, funds, and facilities to select its candidates in a primary election, the election has to be open to all affiliations. If a party doesn't like it, they're welcome to hold a nominating convention or some other vote that's only open to registered party members. But they have to pay for it themselves. They can't use government voting equipment, employees, and so forth.
It used to be that way. The state covering the election allows the state election board so there's some measure of oversight and control.
If you don't look, act, walk, talk, pray, and vote like the rabid right, you're not welcome.
Political parties are supposed to be private entities. They determine who can run under their group name. In order to make sure that people of like mind are selecting candidates for their party, they limit the people that can vote on it to people in their party.
To go back to high school days, it would be like having your cross-town rivals vote in your school's prom king election.
There's no reason an independent should get to tell Replublicans who is the best person to represent the Republican party.
Because political parties are private organizations. The primary is to decide who they are going to support. Why would they want to let people who aren't in their party decide who their party is putting forward? What you want is ranked choice voting that eliminates the need for primaries. Also, for the Dems complaining that they didn't have anyone to choose from, try running for office.
We shouldn't have to be affiliated with any party to vote. We're not choosing who we want to vote for, we're choosing who they tell us we can vote for.
Control
The more elections, the more campaign donations. The $3300 limit resets after each primary, runoff, and general election.
Primaries are really preelection and effectively actions of private clubs. All the things others have said are also true, but Primaries are how those private clubs decide who they are going to support in the general. All of the rules are decided on by the state party leaders,a non government group.
If we had ranked voting to would save a lot of hassle, money and time
I don't think I saw anyone else mention this but, the independent party just means no party. But as some have already said, the Democratic party allows independent voters in its primaries.
https://oklahoma.gov/elections/voter-registration/political-party-info.html
I don't like politics either way but I'll just say this, I don't think voting matters so just do whatever you want. It's not like any of the people in power do anything they say they will.
sure; if you were a boy you would build a fort that says no girls allowed and vice versa; independents are treated like the middle child. they leave everyone alone and thinks everyone else is the idiot.
Because the primary is where the parties decide on who they want to be their candidate in November. It is up to the party if they want people registered in other parties to help select their candidate.
So if you are registered in one party, and you want to vote in another's party primary, change your registration early enough. Or get involved in your party and push for someone to register to run for office in that party.
Because of the very nature of this post, is the reason I won't vote after this year. The fix is in.
You know how some kids wont let you play with their toys?
Its like that.
If they open the election to non party members they know it will mess with their vote..Dems don't care so they leave them open here
Why would you want to? If you’re not affiliated with a party then it shouldn’t matter to you who they pick to be their representative. Then when the general election is held you choose then. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to grasp. As a republican I have no issue with not voting in the democratic primaries. Why would you care. To try and sabotage the elections? It sounds like you just want something to cry about.
Oklahoma is partially closed because Democrats allow Independents to vote in their primary
Other refers to different methodologies, for example, CA. & OR have an open primary where the top 2 vote getters move onto the General
Well, you see... there is a group of people who believe that they should be allowed to draw lines all over the map to concentrate the votes of " their people" so their voices will be heard. And it was super hard to convince the other people to keep letting them get away with that. So because they work so hard to keep their voices heard and it would completely undo all that effort on their part to just let anyone vote in their elections, they keep their voices and votes .... pure from the voices of others... I think that's the best way to explain it, so it gets the point across.
You know why. And yes it’s awful.
Um, because they are fucking tools?
Quite a few people flunked government in school.
you know exactly why.