The Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) is organizing an action alert. With the primaries of both Republican and Democratic parties coming up in February, the CUIP is organizing an effort to allow independents to participate in both parties’ primaries in every state. The CUIP is asking its supporters to write letters to the editor in newspapers across the country to support open primaries.

Wikipedia has a page with very good information that details the basic arguments of the debate on open primaries. Some of the basic ideas in the Wikipedia page are:

Voter Participation

Open primaries could be seen as good for voter participation by allowing independent voters to participate in the nominating process. If these voters are allowed to help select the nominees then they may be more likely to vote in the general election, since one of the candidates could be someone the non-partisan voter voted for

However, the open primary could also be viewed as bad for voter participation. Statistics show voter participation in the United States to be higher when people could only vote in the primary for their own party. The closed primary system had more of an incentive for people to join one of the major parties. This led to people being more involved in the voting process.

Manipulation and Dilution

Opponents of the open primary believe that the open primary leaves the party nominations vulnerable to manipulation and dilution. First, one party could organize its voters to vote in the other party’s primary and choose the candidate that they most agree with or that they think their party could most easily defeat.

Secondly, in the open primary moderates and independent voters can vote in either party. This occurrence may dilute the vote of a particular party and lead to a nominee who does not represent the views of the particular party.

Constitutional Issues

Opponents of the open primary argue that the open primary is unconstitutional by violating freedom of association. However, the closed primary can also be construed as unconstitutional. In Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court determined that Connecticut’s closed primary law was unconstitutional.

The argument the CUIP makes is a compelling one (and they are the only entity in American politics which are making these arguments on behalf of Independent voters)

• The law allows the Democrats and Republicans to determine whether independents can vote in primaries. But shouldn’t the rights of voters trump the rights of political parties? Shouldn’t all of us, whether we are Democrats, Republicans or independents, have a fundamental right to participate in every stage of our election process?
• In the vast majority of states it is the taxpayers who pay the costs associated with holding primaries and caucuses.
• Independent voters in closed primary states don’t enjoy the rights of full citizenship and are excluded from what is often the most critical part of the electoral process. In these states, where one party often dominates, the primary election is the only one that matters. The general election is a rubber stamp of the primary’s results, and then, the votes of independent voters are irrelevant.

Here is a list of states which hold closed primaries. The CUIP’s action alert gives instructions on how to craft a letter to the editor to newspapers in support of open primaries.