“Across the 15 states with closed congressional primaries (and 22 states with closed presidential primaries), more than 23 million independents have no opportunity to participate in the candidate selection process. Were such independents to have a say, their influence could elevate the voices of more representative candidates who might reduce polarization, reject partisan brinkmanship, and offer voters different options, both within and beyond the two major parties.” - Joseph Cerrone/Unite America, Research Brief: Growing Cohort of Independent Voters Becomes Critical Segment of Electorate. November 15, 2024
In 2004, 31% of American voters self-identified as independents, less than either Democrats or Republicans. Twenty years later, 43% identify as independents, much higher than either Democrats or Republicans, both sinking under the weight of voter dissatisfaction at just 28% each. The trend is obvious:
More on independents, from Joseph Cerrone/Unite America:
Independents overwhelmingly identify as “moderate” and state they agree with both major parties on certain issues. For example, independents tend to trust Democrats more on abortion, healthcare, and climate change, while they prefer Republicans on the economy, gun rights, and immigration.
Despite their numbers, millions of independents are excluded from primary elections across the 15 states with closed congressional primaries and the 22 with closed presidential primaries.
An almost equal share of respondents stated they lean toward the Democrats (27%) or the Republicans (25%), with the remainder (48%) associating as “pure independents.”
These trends are largely consistent with independents' self-reported voting history. Overall, independents recall “sometimes” voting for Democratic (64%), Republican (63%), independent (72%), and third-party (54%) candidates.
Importantly, these patterns suggest that independent voters are drawn from across the ideological spectrum and express an openness to supporting a wide variety of parties and candidates, rather than consistently favoring one “side” over the other.
For many independents, this ideological diversity motivates the decision to eschew party membership—31% of respondents felt that none of the major parties represents their views, while 68% stated their independent status is driven by a desire to “think for myself, independent of what parties and candidates tell me to think.”
How can independents exert more influence on electoral outcomes? By states replacing party primaries with a single nonpartisan jungle primary. This has already been done in Alaska, where the top four candidates in a nonpartisan primary advance to a general election that uses ranked-choice voting.
Alaska’s top-four nonpartisan primary system is used for all state and federal elections except for the president. So far, the state’s system has increased primary participation and competition. More from Unite America Institute,
Alaska voters are guaranteed the right to vote for any candidate in any election, regardless of their party affiliation.
[In 2024] Alaska had the highest share of eligible voters (35%) who cast “meaningful votes” to elect its state house, nearly three times the national average. (Meaningful votes are ballots cast in competitive elections that are not effectively pre-determined by party affiliation alone)
Alaska’s elections were much more competitive: Just 12% of Alaska’s state legislative general elections were uncontested in 2022, half of the rate from 2020. Further, in these contested contests, candidates typically won by smaller margins, indicating greater competition.
Also of note: the latest election allowed for intraparty competition in general elections for the first time. Half of all contests featured more than one candidate from the same major party. When there is intraparty competition in a safe district, candidates are forced to appeal to a larger subset of voters, and all voters get a voice in the final outcome.
If more states had nonpartisan primaries like Alaska’s, members of Congress would be more responsive to their constituents’ concerns and less susceptible to bullying from the executive branch. That’s because nonpartisan primaries would make it much harder for presidents to control primary outcomes and thus threaten unfavored legislators with political annihilation in their state primaries. Which is what Trump did last month when he blasted U.S. Representative Thomas Massie for opposing a stopgap spending measure. To quote Trump’s Truth Social post: “Congressman Thomas Massie… SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him.”
The vast number of independent voters in this country would have a greater impact on federal election outcomes if the states had nonpartisan primaries. Such primaries would also improve the balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government – bringing us a bit closer to what the framers of our Constitution intended.