Closed primaries are voter suppression aided by state

A closed primary election is the very definition of voter suppression. And it is aided and abetted by the state government of Florida.

I fail to see how opening up the electoral process to 3.6 million No Party Affiliated voters, including 1 million minority voters, is suppressing the minority vote; it is the exact opposite.

The election of minority candidates is curtailed not by more voters but by fewer voters. Minority candidates are not elected on just minority votes, it takes a significant number of majority votes to win. Recently, minority candidates with a wide appeal have fared well.

The issue of electing a fair number of minority candidates is about unfairly drawn legislative and congressional districts. There have been attacks on the Voting Rights Act by the court saying the racists have repented and all is well now. I say voter suppression and discrimination continues. A closed primary is one example

Non-majority citizens — non-privileged citizens — of all stripes, have no permanent political party except the one currently advocating and legislating for civil rights, freedom and justice for all and global human rights.

Political parties change depending upon the people who are in the party. Over the decades, parties and what they advocate or do not advocate have flip-flopped. What was ultra-conservative is now liberal and vice-versa.

To vote, voters should need only register with the state of Florida, not with a political party.

If a voter wants to associate with a private concern she is not precluded that right. If a voter only wants to vote for individuals in just one party, they can in an open primary. But the government should not make that choice automatically or arbitrarily for her.

Political parties are not restricted from allowing voters unaffiliated with their party from voting in their state-supported private primary. They could voluntarily open it to all registered-to-vote Floridians.

Perhaps they don’t trust the outcomes if every voter exercised the right to vote for whomever they think is the better candidate for a public office. Party bosses say voters not registered with their party would invade their party’s primary and vote for their party’s weakest candidate rather than to vote in another party’s primary for the real candidate of their choice.

Really? Does it make sense not to vote for your candidate and instead cast a negative vote for someone you detest; someone you absolutely do not want in office? A vote is too precious to play games with and the instances of such spoiler voting, like voter fraud, is almost non-existent.

All taxpayers fund elections both primary and general elections. By denying every voter an unfettered opportunity to vote in each as they please is tantamount to taxation without representation.

Private political parties and other special interests have predetermined desired outcomes that may be quite partisan.or single issue. However, unaffiliated voters only want to be enabled to vote for the person of their choosing from among all the candidates on the ballot, not just those of a particular private political party.

If private political parties want exclusivity in determining their standard-bearers, let them foot the bill for that and not use government staff and resources for their discriminatory activity.

We preach democracy and “one person, one vote” and the importance of free, open, unfettered voting as we adventure around the globe, yet we are so restrictive at home.

A more democratic system would have a nonpartisan redistricting commission, strong and enforced voting rights and all public offices would be nonpartisan because they belong to the people not the parties.

A closed primary is the very definition of voter suppression. Vote a resounding “Yes” on Amendment 3!