Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Most congressional elections have already been decided – by just 8 percent of voters

Opinion

Texas primary voter

Texas primary voters effectively decided the outcome of 36 of the state's 38 House races.

Montinique Monroe/Getty Images

Troiano is the executive director of Unite America, a nonpartisan organization focused on defending and reforming our democracy.

Voters will head to the polls throughout Tuesday to choose who will represent them in Congress, on high-stakes issues ranging from inflation to abortion. Yet the vast majority of congressional elections were effectively decided months ago, by a small and unrepresentative sliver of the electorate in partisan primaries – depriving millions of general election voters of any meaningful voice.

As a result, while which party will gain a legislative majority remains in question, we can be certain that the next Congress will be the most polarized and least accountable in our lifetimes, as this “Primary Problem” worsens with each election cycle.

To have a bigger impact on who we elect, we must change how we elect. Partisan primaries should be replaced with nonpartisan primaries that give all voters a say in who represents them, regardless of party. Alaska recently became the fourth state to do so. Nevada may be next.


Just 8 percent of eligible voters nationally voted in primaries that effectively determined the outcome of 83 percent of U.S. House seats this year. That’s according to a new analysis by Unite America, the nonpartisan election reform organization I run. This imbalance, between how few voters ultimately decide many congressional elections, is due to the fact that the vast majority of districts are “safe” for one party or another – meaning the winner of the dominant party’s primary is virtually guaranteed to win the general election. Very few voters participate in these primaries, and those who do are usually the strongest partisans.

The Primary Problem is worse than it even appears on the surface: In more than a third of House contests for safe seats (130), the dominant party’s primary was uncontested – giving voters no ability to choose their representative. In another 32 of these contests, the nominee won with just a plurality of votes, not a majority. And across nine states with closed primaries, nearly 13 million Americans who choose not to affiliate with either major party were locked out of participating altogether.

It’s not a problem unique to one party: In Texas, for example, primaries dictated the outcomes in 36 of the state’s 38 congressional districts – including in 15 runoff contests in which less than 3 percent of eligible voters turned out. In Massachusetts, the entire nine-member congressional delegation was effectively determined in the Democratic primary, where no candidate faced a single opponent. Can the November election even be called an election?

Primaries present an acute threat to democracy within the Republican Party, as increased polarization manifests as outright hostility to free and fair elections. In 117 “safe” GOP congressional districts, representing over a quarter of the next Congress, Republicans nominated candidates who have fully denied the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to FiveThirtyEight. Further, all four House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump and ran for reelection in partisan primaries were defeated by Trump-backed challengers – with $53 million dollars of help from Democrats who sought to maximize their chances in the general election by running against a more extreme opponent.

What happens when both parties make standing up for democracy wholly incompatible with winning a Republican primary in any red state or district? Every election conducted under the design of our current system brings us closer to losing our republic altogether.

The only three Republican members of Congress who voted to impeach or convict Trump to make it to November’s elections are Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, Rep. David Valadao of California and Sen. Lisa Murkowski Alaska – who all hail from states that have scrapped partisan primaries.

Washington, California and Alaska have adopted nonpartisan primaries, in which all eligible voters can participate and all candidates run on a single ballot. Washington and California advance the top two finishers from the primary, regardless of party; Alaska advances the top four finishers to the final round, which is determined by an instant runoff.

Alaska’s system can be a model for our country. Almost every race remains competitive in the general election with multiple Democrats and Republicans on the ballot, giving every voter a real voice. There are no forgone conclusions based simply on the letter next to a candidate’s name on the ballot.

Nevada may follow in Alaska’s footsteps if voters pass a ballot initiative to adopt nonpartisan primaries this election, giving 600,000-plus independent voters a voice in elections they are currently prohibited from participating in. Both political parties oppose the measure — but a majority of voters have an opportunity to show them who is truly the boss on Tuesday.

Primary reform can ensure November elections matter for all voters – producing better choices, giving more power to millions of Americans who deserve to be heard, and fostering a more representative government at a time when democracy itself hangs in the balance.


Read More

Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, and Donald Trump Finally Agree on a Major Voting Rights Issue
Image: IVN staff

Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, and Donald Trump Finally Agree on a Major Voting Rights Issue

If you asked Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, or Donald Trump whether they put voters first, all three would say yes.

They would say it confidently.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Retaliatory prosecutions and political score-settling mark a grave threat to the rule of law, constitutional rights, and democratic accountability.

Getty Images, sommart

White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government

The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.

The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing it with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crumpled dollar bills, two coins, a wallet, book, glasses, and home phone on a table.

A new economic study shows tariffs are paid overwhelmingly by American consumers, exposing trade policy as a hidden domestic tax.

Getty Images, David Harrigan

The Tariff Receipt Americans Can No Longer Afford

For years, the American public has been told that tariffs are a sophisticated form of tribute, a way to extract wealth from foreign adversaries while shielding the domestic worker. It is a seductive narrative, painted in the bold strokes of nationalistic pride. But as a rigorous new study from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy confirms, the reality is far less heroic. The bill for these trade barriers is not being mailed to Beijing, New Delhi, or Brussels. It is being delivered, with startling efficiency, to the kitchen tables of the American family.

The findings are as clear as they are sobering. After analyzing more than 25 million shipment records totaling nearly 4 trillion dollars, researchers found that American importers and consumers have shouldered 96 percent of the cost of recent tariffs. Foreign exporters, by contrast, have felt a mere 4 percent of the sting. Despite the robust rhetoric emanating from the White House, the data suggests that tariffs function not as a foreign levy but as a domestic consumption tax. The government may have collected 200 billion dollars in customs revenue in 2025, but that money was extracted almost entirely from the pockets of the people it was ostensibly meant to protect.

Keep ReadingShow less