Should the 45% of Americans who self ID as political Independents be able to vote in party primaries?

[Dutch Uncle]

Smerconish question of the day:

Daily Poll - Cast Your Vote - SMERCONISH

Vote in the Smerconish Daily Poll to get your voice heard on the latest breaking news issues, politics, and other hot topics.

www.smerconish.com

Should the 45% of Americans who self ID as political Independents be able to vote in party primaries?
I voted yes but have a caveat: voters can only vote in one primary, not both. I might change my mind if more evidence is given on why that is a better.

New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents

A new high of 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025.

news.gallup.com

New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents​

More independents lean Democratic than Republican, giving Democrats edge in party affiliation for first time since 2021
A record-high 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025, surpassing the 43% measured in 2014, 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, equal shares of U.S. adults — 27% each — identified as either Democrats or Republicans.

In most years since Gallup began regularly conducting its polls by telephone in 1988, independents have been the largest political group. However, the independent percentage has increased markedly in the past 15 years, typically registering 40% or higher, a level not reached prior to 2011.

 

[Jake Starkey]

We don't want extremist candidates like Trump or Boebert or Gaetz.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We don't want extremist candidates like Trump or Boebert or Gaetz.

Both parties moved toward the extreme after the Cold War ended and they chose to reinvent themselves.

After losing to Trump a couple times, the Democrats are rethinking their strategy including a pull back to center and kitchen table issues rather than focusing on minute issues like transpeople and pronouns.

While I strongly believe supporting the rights of all, promoting tolerance will go further, IMO, than beating others about the head and shoulders for being bigots, dinosaurs and lunkheads.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I strongly object to people not registered with a political party being able to vote in that party's primary.
It makes no sense at all to me.

If you won't commit, don't interfere either.

I have strong disagreements with my party, but as a continuous registered member since 1967--you heard me--1967--
I have a stronger disagreement with outsiders getting all into our business.

I'm from the social democratic wing of the party, and outsiders have been prolonging the careers of timid or regressive
moderate democrats for quite a few elections, save for the last one when we had an excellent candidate for which too many Americans were too fucking stupid to vote. We got a good candidate because outsiders didn't get to interfere with the process leading to her nomination.

On other other side of the coin, however, I'm very hard left on the traditional FDR economic issues but not on the modern woke issues.

I believe in helping all legitimately aggrieved segments of the population,
but to do that, we have to win our elections emphasizing issues affecting broad segments of the population,
not very small segments of the population like transgendered or what not.

My grievance with outsiders interfering with our affairs is that they tend to be economically conservation and socially
liberal, which is exactly the opposite direction that I've been trying to push my party from within for more that a half-century.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I strongly object to people not registered with a political party being able to vote in that party's primary.
It makes no sense at all to me.

If you won't commit, don't interfere either.

I have strong disagreements with my party, but as a continuous registered member since 1967--you heard me--1967--
I have a stronger disagreement with outsiders getting all into our business.

I'm from the social democratic wing of the party, and outsiders have been prolonging the careers of timid or regressive
moderate democrats for quite a few elections, save for the last one when we had an excellent candidate for which too many Americans were too fucking stupid to vote. We got a good candidate because outsiders didn't get to interfere with the process leading to her nomination.

On other other side of the coin, however, I'm very hard left on the traditional FDR economic issues but not on the modern woke issues.

I believe in helping all legitimately aggrieved segments of the population,
but to do that, we have to win our elections emphasizing issues affecting broad segments of the population,
not very small segments of the population like transgendered or what not.

My grievance with outsiders interfering with our affairs is that they tend to be economically conservation and socially
liberal, which is exactly the opposite direction that I've been trying to push my party from within for more that a half-century.

No worries. Things will continue to go as they've been going.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

No worries. Things will continue to go as they've been going.

Presently, most or at least many states DO allow people to choose either ballot and then re-register as independents right afterward.
I do understand how people not committed to a national party would want to participate in the nomination process. I really do.

I just don't understand how it's fair to legitimate party members who will be the ones having to fund and work for the campaign afterwards.
We don't necessarily want to contribute to or work on the campaign of a candidate chosen by independents. That should be easy for them to understand.

 

[Lionfish]

I strongly object to people not registered with a political party being able to vote in that party's primary.
It makes no sense at all to me.

If you won't commit, don't interfere either.

I have strong disagreements with my party, but as a continuous registered member since 1967--you heard me--1967--
I have a stronger disagreement with outsiders getting all into our business.

I'm from the social democratic wing of the party, and outsiders have been prolonging the careers of timid or regressive
moderate democrats for quite a few elections, save for the last one when we had an excellent candidate for which too many Americans were too fucking stupid to vote. We got a good candidate because outsiders didn't get to interfere with the process leading to her nomination.

On other other side of the coin, however, I'm very hard left on the traditional FDR economic issues but not on the modern woke issues.

I believe in helping all legitimately aggrieved segments of the population,
but to do that, we have to win our elections emphasizing issues affecting broad segments of the population,
not very small segments of the population like transgendered or what not.

My grievance with outsiders interfering with our affairs is that they tend to be economically conservation and socially
liberal, which is exactly the opposite direction that I've been trying to push my party from within for more that a half-century.

 

[Monad Portal]

We don't want extremist candidates like Trump or Boebert or Gaetz.

so how did you vote on this poll?

 

[Monad Portal]

I strongly object to people not registered with a political party being able to vote in that party's primary.
It makes no sense at all to me.

If you won't commit, don't interfere either.

I have strong disagreements with my party, but as a continuous registered member since 1967--you heard me--1967--
I have a stronger disagreement with outsiders getting all into our business.

I'm from the social democratic wing of the party, and outsiders have been prolonging the careers of timid or regressive
moderate democrats for quite a few elections, save for the last one when we had an excellent candidate for which too many Americans were too fucking stupid to vote. We got a good candidate because outsiders didn't get to interfere with the process leading to her nomination.

On other other side of the coin, however, I'm very hard left on the traditional FDR economic issues but not on the modern woke issues.

I believe in helping all legitimately aggrieved segments of the population,
but to do that, we have to win our elections emphasizing issues affecting broad segments of the population,
not very small segments of the population like transgendered or what not.

My grievance with outsiders interfering with our affairs is that they tend to be economically conservation and socially
liberal, which is exactly the opposite direction that I've been trying to push my party from within for more that a half-century.

niblick is right this time.

 

[Monad Portal]

no primary votes for independents.

that's the price you pay for being so holier than all.

 

[QP!]

I strongly object to people not registered with a political party being able to vote in that party's primary.
It makes no sense at all to me.

If you won't commit, don't interfere either.

I have strong disagreements with my party, but as a continuous registered member since 1967--you heard me--1967--
I have a stronger disagreement with outsiders getting all into our business.

I'm from the social democratic wing of the party, and outsiders have been prolonging the careers of timid or regressive
moderate democrats for quite a few elections, save for the last one when we had an excellent candidate for which too many Americans were too fucking stupid to vote. We got a good candidate because outsiders didn't get to interfere with the process leading to her nomination.

On other other side of the coin, however, I'm very hard left on the traditional FDR economic issues but not on the modern woke issues.

I believe in helping all legitimately aggrieved segments of the population,
but to do that, we have to win our elections emphasizing issues affecting broad segments of the population,
not very small segments of the population like transgendered or what not.

My grievance with outsiders interfering with our affairs is that they tend to be economically conservation and socially
liberal, which is exactly the opposite direction that I've been trying to push my party from within for more that a half-century.

I'm exact opposite.

I think forcing people to comply with a party they do not agree with based on 'lesser of two evils', as so often happens, is why the system is so messed up and is exactly what the two parties want.

When people are forced to take a side the party then says 'look how popular we are... we do not need to change anything'.

When the Independents grow and grow both parties have to take notice of that threat that can swing either way if one or the other party makes real offers to them.

 

[Jake Starkey]

I don't want the nifty on the extremes washing out the center, where sensibility not reactionaryism slinks.

We govern best from the center.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I'm exact opposite.

I think forcing people to comply with a party they do not agree with based on 'lesser of two evils', as so often happens, is why the system is so messed up and is exactly what the two parties want.

When people are forced to take a side the party then says 'look how popular we are... we do not need to change anything'.

When the Independents grow and grow both parties have to take notice of that threat that can swing either way if one or the other party makes real offers to them.

I'm not asking anybody to take a side.

I'm asking them to keep their faces out of my business as a legitimate and loyal party member who both
contributes to and works on (or did when I was younger) campaigns.

I don't want to contribute to the candidate chosen by commitment-phobic independents.
Start your own party. Vote in its primary. Don't interfere with mine when you've done nothing for it.
You haven't earned the right.

 

[QP!]

It is because of the 'lesser of two evils' party belief we got Trump V Hillary the first time. Trump had highest unlikeability, so the Dems felt comfortable running the person with the second highest unfavorability in the country.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It is because of the 'lesser of two evils' party belief we got Trump V Hillary the first time. Trump had highest unlikeability, so three Dems felt comfortable running the person with the second highest unfavorability in the country.

Then we simply disagree--strongly.
I don't recognize your right to interfere my MY party.
You've done nothing to earn it.
I've been loyal and supportive since registering in 1967.

 

[QP!]

I'm not asking anybody to take a side.

I'm asking them to keep their faces out of my business as a legitimate and loyal party member who both
contributes to and works on (or did when I was younger) campaigns.

I don't want to contribute to the candidate chosen by commitment-phobic independents.
Start your own party. Vote in its primary. Don't interfere with mine when you've done nothing for it.
You haven't earned the right.

I understand.

I just don't share that view because of the way the Supreme Court has entrenched the two party system and unlimited money.

In other systems new minority parties can arise and challenge and force the big parties to compromise but not in the US.

America has 45% Independents, and growing which is the clearest signal and threat to both parties that they need to be considered but if you force them to take a side or ensure their votes won't count then when they take a side, and register, the party will say 'see they agree with us...no need to change'.

 

[QP!]

It is similar to when there is talk about forcing people to vote due to low voter turn out. Low turn out is both a sign and threat to existing politicians that if they listen more to the people they might show up and vote to change things. If they force them to vote the politicians then point at that high turn out as proof the system works and voters are engaged

 

[QP!]

Then we simply disagree--strongly.
I don't recognize your right to interfere my MY party.
You've done nothing to earn it.
I've been loyal and supportive since registering in 1967.

Which is fine.

And with respect I don't care what you recognize or like, if they allow it i will be happy and if not you will.

You making a claim as if the party voting system is your possession matters only to you. The rest of us will accept whatever rules they allow

 

[Diesel]

It is because of the 'lesser of two evils' party belief we got Trump V Hillary the first time. Trump had highest unlikeability, so the Dems felt comfortable running the person with the second highest unfavorability in the country.

And thus began our national nightmare. The Republicans nominated one of the worst humans alive. The Democrats got him elected. Twice.

 

[Jake Starkey]

I'm not asking anybody to take a side.

I'm asking them to keep their faces out of my business as a legitimate and loyal party member who both
contributes to and works on (or did when I was younger) campaigns.

I don't want to contribute to the candidate chosen by commitment-phobic independents.
Start your own party. Vote in its primary. Don't interfere with mine when you've done nothing for it.
You haven't earned the right.

You have no "leave me alone" rights on politics and voting when such affects all of us.

What an EPA you are.