Many authors and commenters on IVN clearly believe that it is wrong for any party, or any state law, to prevent independent voters from voting in a government-administered primary for public office. I am personally undecided about that issue. It would help me to think clearly about this issue if someone will write an article for IVN that explains the philosophical objections some voters have to being required to join a party before they can vote in its primary for public office.

Correction note: This article originally said that Open Primaries spent $300,000 in support of the donation disclosure initiative. It was the coalition in support of both initiatives. The article has been corrected.

Salon reported Thursday that a campaign to adopt nonpartisan elections in Arizona suspended its efforts after a major donor dropped out.

On Thursday, I was astonished to see someone argue that the gridlock and hopeless partisanship we see in Washington are just phenomenalized by the news, and that our politicians 'really do' work together.

This is, of course, vastly different than what we usually perceive our government to be doing -- between the budget shutdowns, refusal to hear SCOTUS nominations, and the sheer number of  bills dying from lack of cloture -- we have gridlock. But just how bad is it?

In 1999, President Bill Clinton praised the philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) – who had just received the National Humanities Medal – for his contributions to liberal political thought. Clinton applauded Rawls for having “placed our rights to liberty and justice upon a strong and brilliant new foundation of reason” and having “helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself.”