NYC's closed primaries harm voting rights 54%

By Dr. Jessie Fields69%

7/14/2026, 2:00:13 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.1% saturation with 126 hits. Analysis detected 1,204 faulty-reasoning hits from 597 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.3% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,118 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.80% of the article peer group.

I am a Black woman and an independent voter, who grew up in the 1960s in the segregated neighborhood of “colored” South Philadelphia, where decades earlier W. 
E. 
B. 
Du Bois knocked on tenement doors to chronicle the hard life of the Philadelphia Negro. 
As a New York City doctor, I see health disparities in marginalized communities and know how important it is for all communities to be equally included in our democracy. 
There are 1.2 million independent voters in New York City, almost half of them are under age 40 and 54.5% of them are voters of color. 
That amounts to 148,770 Black, 234,130 Asian-American, and 282,687 Hispanic voters shut out of primary elections that effectively determine who will govern their neighborhoods, schools, housing, and safety. 
Our closed primary system disproportionately excludes voters of color and young people who are increasingly choosing not to affiliate with a political party. 
Voters have a fundamental right not to join a political party and that right is violated when voting is conditioned on joining one. 
This is a civil rights and voting rights crisis about access to political power. 
Primary elections are not private club elections. 
They are publicly funded, publicly administered elections that determine public offices. 
Yet participation is restricted by party rules. 
We have seen barriers to voting before in American history: systems that appear procedural on their face, such as registration rules or eligibility requirements, limit access to political power. 
The Black community has led the fight for equal voting rights, and the expansion of voting rights must keep pace with a changing electorate. 
In 1776, only property-owning white men could vote. 
It took a Civil War and the 15th Amendment to extend voting rights to African-Americans, though for nearly a century poll taxes, violence, discrimination, and literacy tests kept many from exercising that right. 
After decades of organizing, the 19th Amendment expanded the franchise to women in 1920. 
In 1965, the Civil Rights Movement secured the Voting Rights Act, removing barriers that denied African-Americans access to the ballot. 
In 1971, the voting age was lowered to 18, recognizing that young Americans also deserved a voice in our democracy. 
Today we are confronting a political backlash against voting rights and civil rights. 
The U.S. 
Supreme Court has undermined the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for greater voter suppression and restrictive voter identification laws. 
To quote a law review article “Let All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States,” co-authored by the late Michael Hardy of the National Action Network, “The recognition of the rights of independent voters is a new frontier in the civil rights/voting rights struggle.” 
Progressive elected leaders must confront voter suppression and disenfranchisement by lifting the barriers to voting for all, including for independent voters. 
Mayor Mamdani should instruct his Charter Revision Commission to place an initiative on the ballot to open our primary elections to unaffiliated, independent voters. 
Political independence carries deep meaning. 
To me, one of the most powerful examples of that independence was Dr. 
Martin Luther King Jr.’s willingness to challenge the Democratic Party and President Lyndon B. 
Johnson when he spoke out against the Vietnam War. 
King delivered his “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” speech at Riverside Church in Harlem on April 4, 1967, and was assassinated exactly one year later. 
Your vote is your voice. 
Let us strengthen our democracy by ensuring every voice is included. 
Fields is a Harlem community doctor and board member of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Dr. Jessie Fields: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic7.4%This article: 4.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 5.5%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Dr. Jessie Fields: 6.7%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 4.7%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion4.7%This article: 4.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 3.4%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 21.1%Dr. Jessie Fields: 6.1%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias21.1%This article: 7.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Dr. Jessie Fields: 2.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 2.3%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.9%Dr. Jessie Fields: 9.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority17.9%This article: 4.7%Dr. Jessie Fields: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma4.7%This article: 3.4%Dr. Jessie Fields: 4.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope3.4%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%Dr. Jessie Fields: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.7%Dr. Jessie Fields: 8.8%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion11.7%This article: 3.9%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 16.1%Dr. Jessie Fields: 4.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.1%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 3.9%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal3.9%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 8.4%Dr. Jessie Fields: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.4%This article: 15.1%Dr. Jessie Fields: 7.9%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice15.1%This article: 11.6%Dr. Jessie Fields: 8.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination11.6%This article: 3.5%Dr. Jessie Fields: 5.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Dr. Jessie Fields: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

597 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.