Who’s down with NPP? More California voters

I’ve followed politics my whole life, but I never paid much attention to No Party Preference (NPP)
candidates.

Why would I? They rarely get a real shot. No big money, no party machinery, no guaranteed
seat at the debate table. They exist outside the traditional system and the system tends to act like they
don’t exist at all.

That changed when I began working on an NPP gubernatorial campaign, for candidate Elaine Culotti. For the first time, I saw how significant the political middle actually is, and how aggressively the establishment works to keep it on the sidelines.

The wake-up call came during the now-canceled 2026 California gubernatorial debate, which was meant to be co-hosted by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and ABC/KABC Los Angeles last month.

Culotti — a qualified, independent candidate with real-world experience — was excluded from the debate stage.

Then, almost overnight, the entire event was scrapped. There was no clear explanation grounded in fairness or transparency. The narrative quickly shifted, with blame and counter-blame circulating, but no clear evidence tying the cancellation to any one group.

What was clear, however, was how quickly the conversation became a distraction from the underlying issue: access.

This wasn’t fundamentally about race, as some Democrats alleged, or even about any one candidate. It raised a broader question about who gets a platform and who decides.

For over a decade, California has operated within an increasingly dominant one-party framework. During that time, the state has faced mounting challenges: a housing crisis that has priced out entire generations, rising homelessness, persistent public safety concerns, devastating wildfires, and ongoing concerns about government efficiency and spending. Yet the political structure continues to frame choices in largely binary terms.

But California is no longer a simple two-party state. Registration trends tell a different story: roughly 45%
Democrat, 25% Republican, and a rapidly growing bloc, over 20%, identifying as No Party Preference.

These voters are not peripheral. In many cases, they are decisive. And yet, they often remain underrepresented in the most visible parts of the electoral process.

That tension is part of what makes the debate over debate access so important.

Culotti recently called for more transparency and inclusivity in how debates are structured. Her position emphasizes a straightforward principle: Voters benefit when they can hear from all qualified candidates, not just those who meet thresholds that may not fully reflect the fluid dynamics of a race.

This moment is particularly unusual. With the recent exit of Congressman Eric Swalwell from the
gubernatorial contest, the composition of the field has shifted. Situations like this raise legitimate
questions about whether static polling and fundraising thresholds should be reconsidered in real time.

While Culotti may not meet every traditional benchmark, the evolving nature of the race, and the growing influence of NPP voters, creates a reasonable argument for broader inclusion.

NPP voters are now one of the fastest-growing and most decisive blocs in California. Reflecting that reality in debate participation could enhance the relevance of these forums for the electorate at large.

This isn’t simply about one candidate. It’s about whether the political system can adapt to the changing
shape of its voters.

Nationally, the rise of independent identification is well documented. According to Gallup, roughly 45% of
Americans now identify as independents, more than either major party. Figures across the political
spectrum, from outsiders to long-established voices, have tapped into this shift in different ways,
reshaping coalitions and challenging traditional alignments.

California, often seen as a bellwether for national trends, may be at the forefront of this transformation.
The larger issue is not whether independent candidates should replace the two-party system, but whether
they should be fully visible within it.

Debate stages are not just campaign tools; they are public forums. When access to those forums is perceived as limited or inconsistent, it raises broader concerns about representation.

A system that reflects only part of the electorate risks losing the confidence of the whole.

And California’s future may not lie in choosing between red and blue, but in recognizing the growing influence of the space in between.

Nick Salonites, an entrepreneur, athlete, and writer, is the founder of Never Surrender USA.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters