Pennsylvanians are accustomed to a primary that might not reveal how they feel. After all, Pennsylvania may be a critical state in presidential elections, yet its primary falls late in the season. That means that by the time Democrats and Republicans head to the polls for a presidential primary every four years, the idea of choice is often moot.
But that is just every fourth year. For independents, the primaries pass annually with no involvement in picking who will appear on the November ballot.
The frustration is understandable. It is also being addressed in other states. Only seven others — Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee and Wyoming — have completely closed primaries, a process open only to registered party members. The other 42 states fall on a spectrum, from partially closed systems to open primaries and even multi-party contests where the top two candidates advance regardless of party.
In the Keystone State, there have been pushes to pry the process open and allow more participation. They rarely gain traction, no matter how often they resurface.
There are bills in the Legislature right now addressing the issue. Both chambers have proposals, including a bipartisan effort in the Senate.
Now advocates are turning to the courts. A group of independent voters, backed by Ballot PA Action, has filed a lawsuit arguing Pennsylvania’s system violates the state constitution by giving partisan voters more influence than those who remain unaffiliated, according to Spotlight PA.
The tricky part is how to be fair to independents without diluting the votes of party members.
This is not the first time this question has come up in an editorial. Responses from readers often include confusion from registered Democrats and Republicans.
Why, they ask, should people who don’t join their parties get a say in who they put up for office?
The issue is that the two major parties effectively hold a monopoly on the ballot.
While third parties exist and independents can vote as they choose, the overwhelming majority of those elected are Democrats or Republicans. It makes sense that all voters would want a role in that process. If they didn’t want a say, they wouldn’t be voting at all.
Every effort around voting should focus on getting as many people actively engaged as possible. The more people who vote — in every election, every year — the more voices are heard on the most important questions.
These proposals should be heard. They should be debated. They should be discussed and given votes in committee and on the floor, regardless of the outcome.
Pennsylvania knows what it is like to get a choice in November, but not earlier in the process. Why would the state want to relegate so many of its voters to that every year without at least talking about a way to bring everyone in?