impotent independence

Judging by the attention payed to them by media and politicians, one would think independents (a growing portion of the American population) play a powerful role in politics. But the truth is their influence in elections varies tremendously from state to state.

Many states have closed primaries and caucuses in which independents cannot participate. So the only choice many independents have in regard to national politics is between the dominant Republican and dominant Democrat, unless they favor a third-party candidate for a Congressional seat. A viable presidential candidate can only be a Republican or Democrat, since those parties control the electoral college.

Would opening every primary and caucus help? Only if each voter was limited to participating in a single party's candidacy election. Otherwise, we would see an increase in the already common practice of candidacy sabotage (such as when a Democrat votes in a Republican primary to disrupt Republican leadership, rather than to support a Republican candidate whom that voter truly believes in) and genuine votes would be diluted. Even with a limit to one vote, sabotage would still occur.

And because of the timing of primaries, selection of candidates is severely limited for many Americans, independent or otherwise, by the time one's state comes around in the process. During the 2008 presidential election, I wanted to vote for Fred Thompson. I couldn't. I live in Texas, and Thompson dropped out of the race before Texas got a say.

This is one reason why, like Mark Steyn, I am not optimistic about the future of American government. The Tea Party movement demonstrates that many Americans want something other than what we're getting from both the Democrat and Republican parties. But much of that frustration will be silenced by the voting process.