Why does Massachusetts have so many independents?
All around the blogosphere I’ve seen variations on the following theme: if Massachusetts is such a deep blue state, why so many independents (close to half of the registered voters) there?
I believe the answer may lie in the rules about voting in the primaries:
In our modified closed primary, Massachusetts has chosen to only allow those who meet the following criteria to vote:
1. You must be registered to vote.
2. You must be enrolled as a Democrat or Republican; OR
3. Are listed as Unenrolled (formerly known as ”˜Independent’)That’s it. If you meet the above criteria, you are eligible to vote in the primary.
Caveat: If you are registered Republican or Democrat, you MUST vote in your party’s primary ”“ only those listed as ”˜Unenrolled’ can choose either a Democratic or Republican ballot. This is how Massachusetts is still referred to as a ”˜closed’ primary. There is no inter-party voting because only unenrolled voters can choose which ballot they want.
People like to be free to cross party lines to influence the primaries, and only by being “unenrolled” can they do this in Massachusetts. Those many “independents” we’re hearing about—51% of the voters—are actually “unenrolled.”
I think there was also a trend in the 90s with some of the oh so open minded liberals where they decided they were sooo open minded they were really independents (that and term ‘liberal’ had really taken a beating). In a way, it was a fad related to the ‘I think there for I’m liberal’… just the next step. 😉
But since then something else interesting happened. From the polls I’ve seen, some really became more independent over time… disconnect from the collective too long and you start to develop your own opinions I guess.
I wonder what the D/R split would be if the law were to change so that only party members could vote in primaries.
They do something like that in Indiana too.
I am registered as an Independent. I used to vote third party mostly, now mostly Republican. I voted in the Presidential Primary for Hillary to take some wind out of ∅bama’s sails. It didn’t work, because ∅bama cleaned up in the post-voting caucuses. I should have taken up the request of a Hillary worker to attend one.
Independents registering to cross over into different parties’ primary voting is not something confined to Mass.
I don’t like that system. It allows for far too much mischief. People who have no allegiance to a party shouldn’t have a say in choosing that party’s candidates.
In Pennsylvania, it’s stricter. If you’re registered Democrat, you can vote in the Democratic primary. If you’re registered Republican, you can vote in the Republican primary. If you’re registered as “Independent” or “No Party”, you can vote on ballot questions only.
Of course, you can change your registration as often as you like, but the way you’re registered at the time of the primary determines your voting options.
I was registered Democrat for a long time, then I changed to Libertarian. But the Libertarian Party lost its position on the ballot after failing to get a certain percentage of the vote, and so I was changed to Independent for a few years. I then registered Republican in 2004 so I could vote for Pat Toomey against Arlen Specter in the primary, and that’s where I remain today.
The primary system was supposed to be an improvement over the older method of choosing a party’s candidates: horse-trading in smoke-filled rooms by party insiders. But the proliferation of open primaries, or even hybrid systems like Massachusetts, almost makes me wish we could go back to the old method. Whatever its faults, I think it probably helped screen out egregiously bad candidates and people with known skeletons in their closets. An anti-American character like Obama probably couldn’t have gotten the nod under such a system.
Yes, you are exactly right about this, neo.
Also, I think people who lean conservative in Mass are more comfortable telling their peers they are registered Independent than Republican.
NH has the same system. There is always a lot of talk about people being faux indies and switching over to depth-charge someone in the other party, but I don’t think it is as commonly done as fantasised.
People have enough numerical sense to know their vote is unlikely to change an election. People vote in order to feel part of a cause or to make a statement about civic duty and citizenship. Crossing over undermines that a bit.
Florida politics are much the same, though Florida doesn’t allow “independents” to choose which primary they vote in, so everyone registers as a Republican or as a Democrat, and for reasons below, that means “Democrat”.
For obvious historical reasons relating to the events in the South after the Civil War, the South has long been a Democratic stronghold. The vast majority of local politics is, by inertia, tied to Democrats. Democrats often run unopposed (which means the actual vote that counts is the one in the primary), and/or the GOP only has one candidate (which means the primaries are moot to a registered Republican).
So if your goal is to have the most power in your vote, then, regardless of personal attitude, you register Democratic, even if your final vote in November is consistently GOP.
This is how essentially conservative areas, such as the counties in the north end of Florida (above Orlando and into the panhandle) have so many registered Democrats, yet, in both 2000 and 2004, and even 2008, voted consistently red. Lots of people were whining about how Florida went for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and looking at those registered Dem numbers didn’t grasp why those areas still overwhelmingly went for Bush. There was no chicanery, it was just an oddity of voting regulations.
In Michigan, you register to vote. Period. You choose which primary you’d like to vote in (or the only one you can).
I would hate to have to declare a party, since I’ve even voted Green Party on occasion.
I don’t see much point to keeping track of who’s who (whom?) if people can bounce around like that. It seems like you ought to be declared to influence a party’s candidate selection. I’m suprised everybody isn’t “unenrolled” except the precinct captains, etc.
In Louisiana you can vote in either primary even if you are registered in one party or another. And there is no general election if one candidate gets over 50%. And if nobody gets over 50% the two highest go to the general election, even if they are both in the same party.
That’s what mudbug-eating will do to you.
I’m surprised a psycho-therapist likes Wuthering Heights.
Cathy!
Heathcliff!
rinse and repeat
OK – maybe with Merle Oberon. Just read it, never saw the movie.
Neo – Thanks for this informative post. In support of your argument, I would add that New Jersey has similar rules — and 47 percent of New Jersey voters do not register as members of either party.
I would add one caution. The numbers on the party members and the unenrolled almost always come from registration numbers. As I understand it, Massachusetts, like many other states, is not very good at purging voter rolls.
I don’t know if you are much of a Howie Carr listener but on his show, he has plainly stated that he stays unaffiliated so that he can switch around in the primaries.