In Colorado, at least, independents get to vote in primaries. In 2016, Colorado Proposition 108 passed allowing independent voters to vote in the primary elections. Now, independents can request a party’s ballot before the election. If they don’t, they’ll be mailed all parties’ ballots but are instructed to fill out just one. If they turn in more than one, their vote is invalidates for all primaries voted in.
Third-part candidates don't matter because of the structural gerrymander.
Including them in the conversation is like including me, a non-citizen in the conversation - I don't matter because I'm not remotely electable, and neither are they.
The people who run in the primaries are selected by far fewer than 9%. Parties other than the two have been excluded by bipartisan agreement between the two.
Here in Colorado a couple years ago the Republican nominee for governor (who was a Tea Party insurgent) tried attacking the Democratic nominee for this. The Dem nominee was the then-mayor of Denver and had pushed for and gotten a bike share program in the city. Everyone realized the Republican was nuts and it started a downhill spiral in his campaign.
They don't have to participate in state-run primary elections, but if they choose to, they are not allowed to commit election fraud. Primary elections are still elections.
Of course, they don't have to provide equitable treatment to candidates in other ways.
I'm not making that assumption, but perhaps I am assuming/implying that this issue isn't enough on the radar of most republicans to have much of an impact in a primary race. And as noted by waterlesscloud, a democrat can't win this district.
Yes. Pretty much any of the other candidates from either major party, as well as the minor candidates that got national media attention (any of Stein, Johnson, or McMullin)
Now, if the standard were “no” instead of “less”, the answer would be very different.
I want to clarify that I don’t think drew is being dishonest here. I’ve never heard this requirement nor been asked my party affiliation in a general election. Primaries - yes.
You start to run into issues if you don't allow the same candidates to run again. Issues being that you are suppressing the right to run for office. Now, if the party made the candidate ineligible then that's a different story. Also no clue why I was downvoted without a reason.
> Instead, Nevada would have a nonpartisan primary, from which the top five candidates of any party would emerge to the general election.
How useful is this? My understanding in that in a fair number of elections there is no challenger to the incumbent party, or the challenge is token at best.
That is the two parties have implied territories, sans a handful of areas that are up for grabs "battlegrounds".
With traditional voting or with ranked voting, I'd like to see "None of the above" be provided as a candidate. The People should be provided a means to express that feeling if that's the case.
Let be honest, low voter turnout is often a function of the products being offered. "Not of the above" provides important feedback that's currently lost.
While this does kinda suck, note that Marianne Williamson is excluded from many (if not all) of these same examples, while having announced her candidacy well before (and even making it into the televised debates as well). Politics aside, my guess is this is more than anything else a symptom of not knowing what to do with candidates who don't already hold an elected position.
reply