Those pesky primaries

I'm well aware that the major-parties' faithful pretty much resent independents. We're necessary evils in that we're necessary to get their candidates elected and evil because we're just as likely to get the other party's candidates elected. Why they don't make it easier for us to vote in their primaries is truly bewildering. You'd think they'd pay a little more attention to the "necessary" part.

Some states have open primaries, which means you don't have to declare yourself to be a Republican to vote in the GOP primary, for instance. Others allow you to be, say, a Democrat for a day, or a month, or a quarter in order to vote in the Democratic primary. Others shut you out of the process entirely if you're an independent.

I'm an advocate of open primaries, but not because I want to vote in the major-parties' primaries. Neither is it because some states force us to be dishonest by declaring ourselves to be something we're not just to vote in the primary. Nor is it because I think it's unfair that we're shut out.

No. My reasons are none of the above. I have one, and only one, reason: We all help pay for the primaries. For that reason alone, every registered voter should be allowed unrestricted access to the primary process. As Michael Bloomberg recently pointed out, not only are we excluded, but also we're forced to pay for primaries while the parties do all they can to keep independent and third-party candidates out of both the primaries and the general election.

The Colorado primaries were held yesterday, and my interest level in the results is directly in proportion to my participation level. Which was zilch, because I'm an independent.

Oh, there was one point of interest: Doug Bruce lost. He got promoted to the state legislature last year when the El Paso county commission could no longer abide his antics. And his antics have been legion. He often disrupted the proceedings and was called everything from a slumlord (property he owns really was disgusting) to a sociopath. He raised a stink even before he was sworn in to the legislature because he didn't like the way he was to be sworn in, and later that day he kicked, or in some way assaulted, a news photographer. He was once ordered to leave the state house podium for calling Colorado's Mexican labor force "illiterate peasants" and was booted off the military affairs committee for refusing to vote in favor of a resolution honoring...um...military veterans.

I guess it was a good day after all. Even if I did have to stay home.

New Independent Voter Poll

IndependentVoting.org recently posted a new poll for independents---the 2008 Presidential Strategies Survey---that's designed to provide input to CUIP* for an upcoming report on independents and presidential primaries. I took the survey last week, so of course I cannot remember what questions were asked; I'd have to take the survey again to refresh my ever-failing memory. But far be it from me to skew the results in such an unscrupulous manner, even if my motive---educating you, my beloved reader(s)---is pure.

What I do recall is that the questions were detailed and allowed participants to give thoughtful responses. If you'd like to make your independent voice heard, click here to take the survey, or go to IndependentVoting.org  and click on the "2008: Take Our Presidential Poll" box in the upper right corner of the home page. While you're there, roam around the site for a bit; there's great information, articles and other resources for independents.

*CUIP stands for Committee for a Unified Independent Party, though said committee has wisely given up hope for creating a unified independent party. It's the group behind IndependentVoting.org.

And Now, a Word from The Hankster

We interrupt this series on political reform to bring you a post-Potomac-primary word from the esteemed Nancy Hanks, who keeps independents well-informed through her daily blog, appropriately titled The Hankster. Nancy obviously has more energy than I do. The primaries wiped me out, but they energized her. Listen to her cheer us on:

Kudos to all the independent voters, the unaligned, the blanks, the unaffiliated, the declined to state, the misfits, the couldn't care less, the disenchanted, the fed-up, the disgusted, the can't make up my mind till the last minute, the disenchanted, the disenfranchised, the disempowered, the poor, the marginalized, the fringe,the radicals, the conservatives, the middle-of-the-roads, the leftists, the fundamentalists, the constitutionalists, the people that insist that democracy means something, the .....

We are being heard. Let's be louder! Speak up now!

You go, girl! I promise, I'll be louder! I'll speak up now! I mean, in the morning or whenever I wake up!

Thanks, Nancy. I needed that boost. I feel empowered once again.

Hillary's Win in New Hampshire

I admit it: I was among those who were taken by surprise when Hillary Clinton won the NH Democratic primary. Given the fact that independents generally dislike the old school partisanship that Hillary Clinton represents, that NH independents in particular had experienced several favorable encounters with the Barack Obama camp in recent months, that by contrast Clinton pretty much dissed them, and that independents comprise 44 percent of the electorate in NH, an Obama win seemed like a sure thing. You could accurately call me confused when the results came in.

Then the ever-astute Jackie Salit of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) cleared up my confusion, as she often does, this time in an analysis of the NH primary posted on the CUIP website. Reminding us that independents in NH get to choose whether to vote in the Republican Party primary or the Democratic Party primary, Salit offers this:

The CNN exit polling indicates that Obama got 41% of the independent vote and Hillary 34%. That would mean Obama got the votes of about 50,000 independents and Hillary got about 41,000. Extending this on the RP side, exit polling says McCain got 39% of indies, which would put his total independent vote close to 32,000.

Obama suffered as a result of McCain's independent draw. Polling originally anticipated that 67% to 70% of independents/undeclared would choose Democratic ballots. Obama would have been the beneficiary of that. But McCain succeeded in pulling enough independents out of the DP equation to grab a win for himself as 60% of independents chose to vote DP yesterday, lower than originally expected. Current numbers indicate that Clinton beat Obama by 7,500 votes. That means that if roughly 1-in-4 McCain independents had voted for Obama instead, Obama would have been able to close the gap with Clinton.

Salit goes on to analyze the female vote, speculating that Obama may have received more votes from independent women than Democratic women. That wouldn't surprise me at all; the female independents I know generally favor Obama over Clinton.

The McCain Factor is a fascinating one, really. Maybe independents' well-known opposition to the war in Iraq has tempered a bit, but I doubt it. Maybe his pro-war stance has become of secondary importance in the context of everything else he represents. I don't know. But I do know this: if McCain's popularity in NH can be credited with contributing to Clinton's NH win, we've got some wild ride ahead of us.

Obama's Appeal to Iowa (and Other) Independents

The proof is finally in: independents prefer Obama over Clinton. We already knew that, didn't we? But Iowa proved it, with those independents participating in the Democratic caucus choosing Obama 2 to 1 over Clinton.

One reason for Obama's appeal to independents is, of course, his transpartisan perspective. He's not just willing to cross major-party lines to get things done; he's also willing to bring third parties and independents into the mix. But there's an even stronger reason for independents' support of Obama: instead of just reaching out to us for our votes, he listens to us and seeks our input. By contrast, Clinton treats us as if we're an annoying but necessary evil. She doesn't understand us at all.

Anyway, our good friend E.J. Dionne Jr., in an op-ed piece ("A Whiff of Revolution from Iowa") in today's Washington Post, offers his always spot-on analysis of the Iowa caucus. For independents or anyone who wants to understand their impact on yesterday's vote, it's a must read.

But let's move on to his take on the upcoming New Hampshire primary, from the same article:

Tuesday's New Hampshire primary will have a much larger turnout, and independents -- roughly 40 percent of the potential electorate -- will play a far greater role than they did in Iowa. Until recently, it appeared that independents, who are on the whole alienated from President Bush and his party, would vote in large numbers in this state's Democratic primary, as they did in the Iowa caucuses. This would benefit Obama...[who in NH]was drawing 46 percent of his support from independents, while Clinton drew 33 percent of her backing from voters who did not declare a party affiliation. By coming into New Hampshire strong, Obama may keep independents on the Democratic side. This could hurt McCain, who leans far more heavily on independents than Romney does.

...Democrats, particularly Obama, are fighting for the middle ground and the independents, while Republicans are largely talking to each other.

The Iowa results, especialling Clinton's third-place showing, Giuliani's barely-there outcome, Huckabee's win, and Ron Paul's strong-for-him placement, may help energize us a bit and help us overcome the election fatigue that started to set in, oh, at least six months ago.

And the Winners Are...

...Democrat Dennis Kucinich, Reublican Ron Paul, and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney (if you just wondered "Who??", you're not alone---she's not well-known outside the Greens). They were the high vote-getters in the online Independent Primary, in which 106,645 votes were cast. (See my previous post for details on the primary.)

What was most interesting to me was that in none of the races was there a close runner-up. Kucinich scooped up 76% of the 80,153 Democratic votes that were cast; John Edwards, the number 2 vote-getter, only received 9%. The results were even more striking in the GOP column. Of the 25,269 votes cast for Republican candidates, Ron Paul captured 93%; Mike Huckabee came in a very distant second with 1.8% of the vote. McKinney captured 80% of the 314 Green Party votes; Jared Ball** (again you ask, "Who??") was the runner-up, also with 1.8% of the vote. Just over 900 voters, by the way, selected "none of the above."

You can see the entire results here.

*Cynthia and **Jared, just so you know:

More on IndependentPrimary.com

Yesterday I posted a piece about IndependentPrimary.com, an effort by political activists to enable independent voters---who are often shut out of the taxpayer-supported primary process---to have a say in the presidential primaries. I just learned that voting closes on December 18, so if you want to make sure your voice is heard, you'll have to vote soon.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think an effort of this type will be effective, and if so, how will it be effective?

A Primary for Independents!

Can you tell I'm excited about this? I, a bona fide independent, can vote in a primary without registering with either major party, and I can do it from the warmth and comfort of my own home. So can you! Okay, so maybe it doesn't actually count or anything, but you've got to admire the independent minds* that thought this up.

Here's the deal: You go to independentprimary.com and vote for one of 16 current presidential candidates (eight Democrats and eight Republicans). You can only vote for one, of course, or you can select "None of the Candidates." Only then do you register to vote (talk about rebellious!) by entering your name, email address, and zip code. Hit "Submit," and your vote is counted. You can only vote once. Well, once per email address, but you wouldn't vote multiples times under a slew of different email addresses, would you? Another option, by the way, is to click on "I've Already Voted; Skip This Page." That's what I did, even though I hadn't voted and even though I know and trust the creators of the site. Still, I wanted to know more before I voted.

So here's the point: Obviously, your vote doesn't count in any legal sense, but there's a lot to be said about giving independents a voice in the primary process. Imagine what would happen if independents—whom the major parties know are pivotal to their success—voted overwhelmingly for, say, Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul. That would give the Hillary-Barack and Rudy-Mitt contingents pause, if nothing else.

But that's just me talking. The folks at Independent Primary say they created the site to:

...establish and measure the power and impact of independent-minded voters on the presidential election.

We are part of a movement bringing together ordinary Americans who think that the good of the country is more important than the good of the political parties.

Frustrated by the lack of genuine and inclusive dialogue about the issues that are critical to the future of our nation, Independent Primary is uniting independent-minded Americans into an organized force to challenge the partisanship and special interest control of policy-making which is endangering our democracy.

We are committed to find a new way of doing politics that is free from the domination of big money, political party bosses and the corporate-owned media.

Sounds good to me. I do think this is an effort worth participating in. And hey, you don't even have to leave home. No effort at all.

* That would be the fine people at IndependentVoice.Org, Independent Texans, Committee for an Independent Voice New Hampshire, and the Committee for a Unified Independent Party.

Live Free or Die!

Independents in New Hampshire are kicking some pretty powerful butt these days. Over the last few days I was away from all things electronic and print, meaning every last source of news and information, and during that time independent activists with New Hampshire's Committee for an Independent Voice lobbied successfully to defeat a bill that would have restricted the rights of independent voters to re-claim their independent status immediately after voting in a statewide primary.

In other words, voters can continue to register as Republicans or Democrats in order to vote in one of the primaries and then regain their status as independents immediately afterward. Until independent voters have complete freedom to vote in primaries, compromises like this are critical to those of us who zealously embrace our independent status.

Congratulations to the committee and especially the indefatigable Betty Ward for the hard work and long hours they put in to garnering support for independents. They even managed to get independents in 13 other states to help them make sure their voice was heard.