Why Democrats Should Want Independents Voting in Their Primaries

(Editor's Note: The following column appears first and foremost on RealClearPolitics.com and is used with the permission of its author.)

Democrats Should Want Independents Voting in Their Primaries, Not Bar Them

I used to believe "closed" primaries were an essential element of the two-party system. Primary elections exist for each of our two major political parties to carry their party banner and support the party platform in the general election.

It made sense to require those participating in those elections to at least be registered as Democratic or Republican voters.

Those who declined to do so, called "independent" or "non-aligned" voters, can wait for the general election.

I opposed open primaries because I believe that America’s traditional two-party tradition, despite its flaws, needed to be strengthened, not weakened.

Because of our two-party system tradition, we have avoided allowing slivers of voters in fringe parties to exert disproportionate power, as seen in parliamentary systems such as Israel, where, for example, far-right religious parties have influence far out of proportion to their numbers.

But a recent column by CNN and Sirius radio independent political analyst Michael Smerconish has changed my mind about favoring the "closed" party primary.

Smerconish recently joined with David Thornburgh, the reform-minded chairman of Ballot PA Action, to challenge Pennsylvania's closed party primary system in a legal action filed directly with the state Supreme Court.

In a recent column headlined "Let Independent Voters Vote," Smerconish made his case with bracing clarity. "I’m one of the 43% of Americans who according to Gallup, self-identify not as Republicans or Democrats, but as independent voters," he wrote.

"There are more than one million such registered voters here in Pennsylvania and yet, we don’t have a say in primary elections even though our tax dollars are being used to stage such contests."

In a lawsuit trying to force the issue, Smerconish and Thornburgh make the compelling constitutional argument that taxpayer-funded primaries must be "free and equal" and Pennsylvania’s constitution and the "closed primary doesn’t treat independent voters' votes equally with those of party registrants."

The same principle is applicable in all other states.

It's a compelling legal argument.

But the political case against closed primaries for the Democratic Party at this stage of our history is even stronger.

The Democratic Party brand is at one of the lowest approval levels ever among the U.S. electorate. According to recent polls, more than six out of 10 Americans have a negative view of the Democratic Party – my party.

You would think if Democrats want to win back Congress in the 2026 midterms and the presidency in 2028, this would be the worst possible time to alienate independent voters.

The latest Gallup data on registered voters further shows the number one choice in America today is to register as an independent — by a large margin: Independent registrants are in first place at 43% of the electorate, an 8% gain since 2008, compared to 28% for Democrats and Republicans each.

Almost all the net gain seems to have come from disillusioned Democrats, with the Democrats dropping the same 8% as the independents gained over this 16-year time period, with Republicans remaining about the same.

So instead of shutting out independent-minded voters, we should be courting them – and listening to them.

Which is why I now support Smerconish and Thornburgh’s effort to open up party primaries in Pennsylvania to independent voters. I hope state party leaders in that state and across the country agree.

The issue of why the Democrats’ brand has become so negative needs to be addressed.

I will do that in my next two Purple Nation columns, but I will give you a hint here, by paraphrasing the famous James Carville formulation: It’s about policy positions, stupid.

In brief: We Democrats need to go back to the "third way" policies of the last and most successful Democratic political candidate and movement: The politics and approach of Bill Clinton, who left on his last day in office in January 2001 after two terms as president with a 65% job approval rating — the highest in U.S. history for a second-term president since modern day polling was invented.

How did Clinton do that?

Not by mushy center-avoiding principles.

But by embracing a third way approach, a reformed FDR liberalism: Neither left nor right, but based on policy principles where most swing-voters reside; FDR liberalism on social programs that benefit working families, but also, requiring individual responsibility; moderation and tolerance on cultural issues; and conservative fiscal responsibility on our federal budget.

Lanny J. Davis is the founder of his Washington D.C. law firm, Lanny J. Davis & Associates LLC, uniquely operating at the intersection of law, media, and politics. A former White House special counsel to President Bill Clinton, he also served on President Bush’s post-9/11 Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. He's the author of six books on politics, government, law, and crisis management, and is due to publish his seventh book early next year, "Finding the Third Way: Lessons in the Politics of Civility From My Journey Through History."