ENDING THE BATTLE FOR MAJORITY CONTROL: An Independent Primary Is Our Nation's Best Defense Against Gridlock, Gerrymandering, and Authoritarianism.
GoodThoughts.us believes the battle for majority control is at the heart of our Nation's dysfunction. Nonpartisan government is the most unifying long-term structural solution, and an independent primary is the bridge to get us there.
People are starting to talk about the fact that more voters identify as independent than either Democrat or Republican, but this important point is still not common knowledge. Most people lump independents into the same category as third parties. In large part this is because independents and third parties are treated similarly by our election laws, but independents vastly outnumber any third-party. For example, GoodThoughts.us is based in beautiful North Carolina where we have approximately 50,000 registered Libertarians and 2,000 Green Party members, but there are 2.7 million independents. Independents are the largest voting group in North Carolina and yet there are zero independent representatives in the state legislature or Congress. That's a problem.
In addition to some history, this page discusses how an independent primary would more accurately reflect our political reality and would diffuse the existential threats of gridlock, gerrymandering, and authoritarianism. Additionally, if you would like more history/law, there's a deep-dive video at the bottom of this page.
People are starting to talk about the fact that more voters identify as independent than either Democrat or Republican, but this important point is still not common knowledge. Most people lump independents into the same category as third parties. In large part this is because independents and third parties are treated similarly by our election laws, but independents vastly outnumber any third-party. For example, GoodThoughts.us is based in beautiful North Carolina where we have approximately 50,000 registered Libertarians and 2,000 Green Party members, but there are 2.7 million independents. Independents are the largest voting group in North Carolina and yet there are zero independent representatives in the state legislature or Congress. That's a problem.
In addition to some history, this page discusses how an independent primary would more accurately reflect our political reality and would diffuse the existential threats of gridlock, gerrymandering, and authoritarianism. Additionally, if you would like more history/law, there's a deep-dive video at the bottom of this page.
Weakening the grip of the authoritarian.
GoodThoughts.us recognizes that many people are understandably concerned about the threat of an authoritarian. Because of the fear of the other side, partisans are not particularly open to empowering independents. Most partisans immediately jump to the thought of a “spoiler” candidate, but it is critically important for the reader to recognize the distinction between advocating for an independent presidential candidate, which is something that can already occur in our system (if you have enough money and name recognition), compared with the creation of an independent primary, which would be a structural reform with many benefits.
While there is no fail-proof system for protecting against an authoritarian, having an independent “catch-all” or “safety-valve” primary as part of our electoral system would not only provide equal treatment under the law for independents, it would also mitigate the impact of an overly influential individual or ideology. As it is now, elected officials are more likely to dig in their heels and stick with their party rather than convert to the other side or deal with the signature collection hurdles involved with being an independent.
Unfortunately, many "leaders" are willing to rationalize doing the wrong thing to maintain their personal power. An independent primary would increase flexibility within the system and would help ensure stability by creating a safe landing spot for disgruntled partisans and those rank and file legislators who might be bullied by an authoritarian party leader. Without this safety-valve, rank and file legislators are easily corrupted. If the authoritarian wins the Presidency and their party controls the legislative branch, the system becomes readily susceptible to takeover. However, if becoming an independent didn’t mean giving up access to power, elected officials (and voters) could easily shift to the category of independent, and better avoid the authoritarian's influence.
While there is no fail-proof system for protecting against an authoritarian, having an independent “catch-all” or “safety-valve” primary as part of our electoral system would not only provide equal treatment under the law for independents, it would also mitigate the impact of an overly influential individual or ideology. As it is now, elected officials are more likely to dig in their heels and stick with their party rather than convert to the other side or deal with the signature collection hurdles involved with being an independent.
Unfortunately, many "leaders" are willing to rationalize doing the wrong thing to maintain their personal power. An independent primary would increase flexibility within the system and would help ensure stability by creating a safe landing spot for disgruntled partisans and those rank and file legislators who might be bullied by an authoritarian party leader. Without this safety-valve, rank and file legislators are easily corrupted. If the authoritarian wins the Presidency and their party controls the legislative branch, the system becomes readily susceptible to takeover. However, if becoming an independent didn’t mean giving up access to power, elected officials (and voters) could easily shift to the category of independent, and better avoid the authoritarian's influence.
What does Jim Crow have to do with independents?
There is nothing in the US Constitution that establishes a “two-party system.” After the Civil War, during Jim Crow, the Democrats and Republicans ensured our path to polarization and gradual demise when they created the “modern two-party system.” The timing and exact rules were not identical in each state, but during Jim Crow, the Democrats and Republicans secured their long-term political power by creating primary elections for themselves while instituting arbitrary and onerous signature collection obstacles for everyone else.
As Black men and later all Women gained the right to vote, the White male dominated Democratic and Republican parties feared political competition. Since the two parties could no longer stop Blacks and Women from voting, they needed to make certain the two parties remained the only political game in town. To do this, the Democrats and Republicans wrote laws that gave, and still give, their party members easy access to primary elections and require everyone else to collect so many signatures they either give up running for office or join one of the two major parties.
Over the last century, American society has unconsciously accepted the process and consequences of this separate and unequal treatment. We need competing ideas and equal access to power for a healthy and peaceful democracy. Since the Jim Crow era, being an independent has meant giving up equal access to power, and yet, the number of registered independents has steadily grown to the point that independents are often surpassing Democrats and Republicans in number. Unfortunately, the Jim Crow signature collection hurdles are still effectively eliminating independents from running for office. This old-time power grab by the two major parties is the structural cause of our current dysfunction.
The inconsistent presence of independent candidates, up and down the general election ballot, makes voters skeptical to support an independent or third-party candidate. Understandably, no one wants to throw their vote away. While independents and third-party candidates have every right to participate, until they have equal access to power, up and down the ballot, like through an independent primary, we will continue to hear the "spoiler" narrative as voters choose between the two major parties. And we will continue to suffer the consequences of our Jim Crow era leadership.
As Black men and later all Women gained the right to vote, the White male dominated Democratic and Republican parties feared political competition. Since the two parties could no longer stop Blacks and Women from voting, they needed to make certain the two parties remained the only political game in town. To do this, the Democrats and Republicans wrote laws that gave, and still give, their party members easy access to primary elections and require everyone else to collect so many signatures they either give up running for office or join one of the two major parties.
Over the last century, American society has unconsciously accepted the process and consequences of this separate and unequal treatment. We need competing ideas and equal access to power for a healthy and peaceful democracy. Since the Jim Crow era, being an independent has meant giving up equal access to power, and yet, the number of registered independents has steadily grown to the point that independents are often surpassing Democrats and Republicans in number. Unfortunately, the Jim Crow signature collection hurdles are still effectively eliminating independents from running for office. This old-time power grab by the two major parties is the structural cause of our current dysfunction.
The inconsistent presence of independent candidates, up and down the general election ballot, makes voters skeptical to support an independent or third-party candidate. Understandably, no one wants to throw their vote away. While independents and third-party candidates have every right to participate, until they have equal access to power, up and down the ballot, like through an independent primary, we will continue to hear the "spoiler" narrative as voters choose between the two major parties. And we will continue to suffer the consequences of our Jim Crow era leadership.
In the image above, the bottom bridge represents the current signature collection pathway for independent candidates, and the top bridge represents an independent primary.
What about other countries?
This page is not going to dive into comparative politics, but on an international level, what is clear is that the United States signed a treaty called the Copenhagen Document, whereby the United States agrees to, “Respect the rights of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations, without discrimination.” The US invited The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (a group associated with the Copenhagen Document) to observe the November 2004 elections. Among other things, the final report speaks to the issue of ballot access, and says, “There is a clear need for continued civil society work of a distinctly nonpartisan nature in the ongoing reform of the U.S. electoral system.”
Why push for an independent primary instead of a nonpartisan primary?
The recent direction within the reform community has been toward nonpartisan primaries where the primary election is open to all candidates regardless of political affiliation. GoodThoughts.us recognizes and applauds the effort required to establish these nonpartisan primaries in several states. In theory the idea seems great for independents because nonpartisan primaries eliminate the signature collection hurdle, but nonpartisan primaries are not diffusing the battle for majority control because it is a reform which attempts to start at the end. If an injured patient seeks help and we agree the patient can return to full strength via weight training, the nonpartisan primary approach asks the patient to begin lifting maximum weight from day one.
By jumbling all the candidates together and allowing, usually 2 and no more than 4 candidates to advance, the established parties are well positioned to simply continue their domination in nonpartisan primaries. Currently, the only advantage to the nonpartisan primary approach over an independent primary is that it allows voters to choose whichever candidate they prefer regardless of that candidate’s affiliation. This piece of progress is not so great when it comes with the significant downside that independents are put in head-to-head competition with major party candidates at the earliest phase of the process. Accordingly, it’s not too surprising to learn that in the states adopting nonpartisan primaries, independents remain essentially unrepresented on the general election ballot.
Conversely, the only downside to an independent primary is that voters would still have to choose a primary in which to vote. This negative point is more than mitigated by the massive upside that independents would be guaranteed a place on the general election ballot for every contest. Even though it would still be difficult for independents to compete in the general election, simply having their presence on the general election ballot would be a huge confidence boost to America’s largest voting bloc. Compare this to nonpartisan primaries where it is not uncommon for the result to be a general election consisting of only one party, which raises eyebrows rather than instilling confidence. And of course, once independents are safely onto the general election ballot, some of them will win. Having independent representation in Congress is imperative for ending the battle for majority control.
An independent primary does not require any major changes for the states and allows the parties to maintain their First Amendment right of association. An independent primary basically uses jujitsu on the duopoly. You want taxpayer-funded primaries? Fine, independents get one too. You want non-party members excluded from voting in your primary? Fine, give independents a primary of their own. An independent primary would accelerate the existing trend of independent voter registration. In relatively short time, independents would become the dominate political category, the two major parties would be reduced to their proper stature, and the idea of a nonpartisan primary would then become timely.
By jumbling all the candidates together and allowing, usually 2 and no more than 4 candidates to advance, the established parties are well positioned to simply continue their domination in nonpartisan primaries. Currently, the only advantage to the nonpartisan primary approach over an independent primary is that it allows voters to choose whichever candidate they prefer regardless of that candidate’s affiliation. This piece of progress is not so great when it comes with the significant downside that independents are put in head-to-head competition with major party candidates at the earliest phase of the process. Accordingly, it’s not too surprising to learn that in the states adopting nonpartisan primaries, independents remain essentially unrepresented on the general election ballot.
Conversely, the only downside to an independent primary is that voters would still have to choose a primary in which to vote. This negative point is more than mitigated by the massive upside that independents would be guaranteed a place on the general election ballot for every contest. Even though it would still be difficult for independents to compete in the general election, simply having their presence on the general election ballot would be a huge confidence boost to America’s largest voting bloc. Compare this to nonpartisan primaries where it is not uncommon for the result to be a general election consisting of only one party, which raises eyebrows rather than instilling confidence. And of course, once independents are safely onto the general election ballot, some of them will win. Having independent representation in Congress is imperative for ending the battle for majority control.
An independent primary does not require any major changes for the states and allows the parties to maintain their First Amendment right of association. An independent primary basically uses jujitsu on the duopoly. You want taxpayer-funded primaries? Fine, independents get one too. You want non-party members excluded from voting in your primary? Fine, give independents a primary of their own. An independent primary would accelerate the existing trend of independent voter registration. In relatively short time, independents would become the dominate political category, the two major parties would be reduced to their proper stature, and the idea of a nonpartisan primary would then become timely.
Separate is still not equal.
Democratic and Republican candidates are provided taxpayer funded primary elections that only cost a small fee to enter. Win or lose, simply having one’s name on the primary ballot and election board website provides significant name promotion. Of course, it’s not necessarily easy to win a Democratic or Republican primary; it depends on whether anyone else is running. Many primary candidates run unopposed or with only one other contestant. On the other hand, collecting thousands, and sometimes tens of thousands, of physical signatures makes the independent pathway inevitably daunting and practically insurmountable.
Maybe you’re wondering, “How many independents try to collect the signatures?” That’s a good question, but unfortunately the state law in North Carolina does not require election boards to keep records of signature collection campaigns for any length of time, so no one can tell you the exact number of signature collection campaigns attempted.
Even in the super-rare case where an independent candidate does manage to collect the signatures and pulls off the miracle win, they are essentially forced to caucus with one of the two major parties because the signature collection process prevents widespread or sustained independent success. Lastly, to add insult to injury (at least in NC), the super-rare independent winner is still required to collect signatures again every election cycle. The separate and unequal signature collection process is the reason there are essentially zero independents in office.
The map below shows the majority political affiliation in each of North Carolina’s Congressional districts (2022 maps and data), and yet there are no independent representatives in Congress.
Maybe you’re wondering, “How many independents try to collect the signatures?” That’s a good question, but unfortunately the state law in North Carolina does not require election boards to keep records of signature collection campaigns for any length of time, so no one can tell you the exact number of signature collection campaigns attempted.
Even in the super-rare case where an independent candidate does manage to collect the signatures and pulls off the miracle win, they are essentially forced to caucus with one of the two major parties because the signature collection process prevents widespread or sustained independent success. Lastly, to add insult to injury (at least in NC), the super-rare independent winner is still required to collect signatures again every election cycle. The separate and unequal signature collection process is the reason there are essentially zero independents in office.
The map below shows the majority political affiliation in each of North Carolina’s Congressional districts (2022 maps and data), and yet there are no independent representatives in Congress.
How does the status quo justify this undemocratic nonsense?
The status quo wants us to believe signature collection requirements are designed to prevent frivolous candidates and overcrowded ballots, but any attention seeker can call themselves a Democrat or Republican, pay a small fee, and automatically be deemed legitimate by the current system. And while most primaries only have a few candidates, it is not uncommon for statewide primaries to be overcrowded. Frivolous candidates and overcrowded ballots are a fair concern, but if we are going to use signature collection to establish legitimacy, then all candidates, regardless of political affiliation, should be required to navigate the same signature collection requirements.
The status quo argues that independents aren’t a party; they have no organization, no unified beliefs, and no official platform. That’s true, but independents have huge numbers. Adults are choosing the category of independent (or unaffiliated) over both Democrats and Republicans. As it is now, Democratic and Republican candidates are not required to follow their party’s platform. Most voters have not read their party’s platform and both parties offer a broad spectrum of candidates. Successful independent candidates would meet one another, organize, and work together as they see fit.
Despite not having an official organization, independents do in fact have some unifying beliefs. Polling through SurveyMonkey found independents overwhelmingly prioritize ideas and character over political parties, and 100% agreed, “All candidates should play by the same rules.”
The status quo argues that independents aren’t a party; they have no organization, no unified beliefs, and no official platform. That’s true, but independents have huge numbers. Adults are choosing the category of independent (or unaffiliated) over both Democrats and Republicans. As it is now, Democratic and Republican candidates are not required to follow their party’s platform. Most voters have not read their party’s platform and both parties offer a broad spectrum of candidates. Successful independent candidates would meet one another, organize, and work together as they see fit.
Despite not having an official organization, independents do in fact have some unifying beliefs. Polling through SurveyMonkey found independents overwhelmingly prioritize ideas and character over political parties, and 100% agreed, “All candidates should play by the same rules.”
An independent primary can diffuse gerrymandering.
It is relatively easy for the majority party to draw heavy-handed maps around one equally sized competing political party, but it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to gain advantage when a third equally sized group, that lives everywhere, is also considered. The maps below help demonstrate the point.
This first map shows the majority party in each county, ignoring independents.
The second map shows the majority “party” when independents are included.
The third map shows the top-two political groups in each county.
As you can see, independents are everywhere, and if equally empowered, they would mathematically disrupt currently gerrymandered districts and help prevent heavy-handed maps from being drawn in the future.
As you can see, independents are everywhere, and if equally empowered, they would mathematically disrupt currently gerrymandered districts and help prevent heavy-handed maps from being drawn in the future.
Our gridlock is paralyzing.
The legislative process was designed to be deliberate, not intransigent. An independent primary would create three equally sized “parties,” which would improve our flexibility and functionality. An independent primary would end the current battle for majority control and the gridlock that comes with it. Three equally sized groups would force all lawmakers into a collaborative mindset because every idea would need significant support from outside of one’s own group. There would no longer be any reward for stubbornly waiting until the next election cycle to regain power. This re-organization of power, rooted in sound democratic principles, promotes unity and teamwork instead of conflict. We need the red, white, and blue working together.
How would an independent primary become a reality?
An independent primary could become law in states that allow citizens to put issues on the ballot (which includes about half the Nation). GoodThoughts.us does not believe Democrats or Republicans are going to pass a law to create an independent primary unless steered in that direction by the Supreme Court. Yes, the judicial branch is politicized and polarized too, but nonetheless it is the most independent branch in our government.
Without going too far down the legal-briefing-rabbit-hole, GoodThoughts.us asserts that the current separate and unequal treatment of independent candidates violates the 14th Amendment concept of equal protection under the law, and our 1st Amendment freedom to associate (or not associate). Oddly, the Supreme Court has not recognized political parties or independents as Constitutionally protected classes. That needs to change because our separate and unequal election laws, rooted in Jim Crow, result in zero representation for independents and profound national dysfunction.
To be clear, GoodThoughts.us does not have any objection to political parties or organizations. GoodThoughts.us objects to separate and unequal rules that result in our Nation's largest voting bloc being unrepresented. The Supreme Court needs to strictly scrutinize the laws which give rise to the lack of independent representation in American politics.
Without going too far down the legal-briefing-rabbit-hole, GoodThoughts.us asserts that the current separate and unequal treatment of independent candidates violates the 14th Amendment concept of equal protection under the law, and our 1st Amendment freedom to associate (or not associate). Oddly, the Supreme Court has not recognized political parties or independents as Constitutionally protected classes. That needs to change because our separate and unequal election laws, rooted in Jim Crow, result in zero representation for independents and profound national dysfunction.
To be clear, GoodThoughts.us does not have any objection to political parties or organizations. GoodThoughts.us objects to separate and unequal rules that result in our Nation's largest voting bloc being unrepresented. The Supreme Court needs to strictly scrutinize the laws which give rise to the lack of independent representation in American politics.
GoodThoughts.us supported lawsuit.
When GoodThoughts.us founder, T. Andrew Dykers, ran for N.C. House in 2022, he was required to collect 2,320 physical signatures to earn a spot on the general election ballot. Finding over 2000 people in your neighborhood willing to sign an official document to support you for a state house seat is an unrealistic and arbitrary task designed to scare off independents who might be inclined to run for office. Candidate Dykers collected over 900 physical signatures by mailing letters to independents in the district. In NC, the law considers anything given in furtherance of the campaign to be a contribution. Even though candidate Dykers did not ask for money, over 500 people placed stamps on the return envelope, giving Dykers more contributors than the eventual winner. These facts show the arbitrary nature of the law, and your contribution to GoodThoughts.us helps support the legal challenge to come.
Unaffiliated
The video below contains a more in-depth discussion of the history behind our primary election process, and explores the bedrock legal case for signature collection. We must make the connection between our current treatment of independents and the post Civil War fight for Blacks and Women to vote.
Video Table of Contents
(0:00-2:20) Introduction
(2:20-8:30)The Australian Ballot
(8:30-10:10)- White only primaries
(10:10-33:06) Jenness v. Fortson
(33:06-46:25) Separate is still not equal