The plight of the political "independent"
A news story about the approaching Democratic Primary in Kentucky recently caught my eye.
Kentucky operates a “closed” primary, meaning that registered Democrats and Republicans cannot switch parties, called a “crossover.” It also means that someone registered as an “independent” cannot vote. Other states such as Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oklahoma and Utah follow similar rules. In all, the National Association of Secretaries of States reports that 16 states use closed primaries.
A source for the news story I read defended the “closed” primary system, and in addressing the plight of “independents” in that process, said that people who couldn’t make up their mind about which party to support, should not get to vote.
What troubles me most about that and similar news articles is the underlying hint that unless you buy into America’s two-party system, you are confused and thus deserve to sit on the outside of the election process looking in.
Social and political scientists, and even psychologists have conducted extensive research on “independent” voters throughout the years. Research ranges from impact on the outcome of elections to the rise and fall in the number of “independent” U.S.-registered voters. Some focus on why someone chooses to register as an “independent.”
I cannot speak for the millions of registered “independents” in the United States, but the choice for me results from crystal clear beliefs, not the inability to make up my mind.
I am among the first batch of voters extended that right to vote at age 18. Congress passed the 26th Amendment on March 23, 1971, and it became ratified July 1, 1971. It became clear while I attended high school that the voting age would change. Much of the impetus for that change came from the suggestion that the government could draft people at age 18 and send them off to war but those same draftees could not vote — a severe form of “taxation without representation.”
I eagerly anticipated the day I could register, and when I did, I chose “independent.”
I have maintained that moniker ever since, despite knowing that in some respects it makes me a second-class citizen on Election Day.
I have a collection of reasons that contribute to my choice, some personal, some professional and some — to a certain degree — political.
- I am by my nature very independent.
- My career as a journalist came with many potential conflicts of interest, among them covering candidates and politics. Doing my best to avoid a “biased” tag made sense to me.
- As I eagerly anticipated my first chance to vote, I began thinking about the country’s two-party system during my lifetime. From my view, if it achieved anything for the country I love, it helped maintain the status quo.
And today, as more and more candidates at all levels preach the need to set partisan politics aside for the betterment of the people, I overhear the simplest, seemingly non-political discussions devolve quickly into liberal (Democrat) versus conservative (Republican). Since my first chance to vote in 1972, I think I faced non-choices in every election cycle.
And until that changes, an “independent” I’ll stay.
Resources:
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
