Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Democrats didn't have a meaningful primary, and no one cared

Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention

Vice President Kamala Harris closes out the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night.

Liao Pan/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images

Lovit is a senior program officer and historian at the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, where he also hosts the podcast "The Context.”

In many respects, last week’s Democratic National Convention was indeed conventional. The party faithful gathered in a basketball arena in Chicago for speeches carefully calibrated to unite factions and define the central messages of the Harris-Walz campaign. It was a ceremony, a celebration and a storyline — just like the Republicans’ convention last month, and many conventions in years past.

For most of American history, party conventions served a different purpose. They were practical meetings where elites hammered out details of the party platform and wrangled over potential nominees. In a political world where party tickets at every level of government were determined in smoke-filled rooms, the convention was the biggest smoke-filled room of them all.


In the early 20th century, progressive reformers sought to cut through the fog with direct primary elections. By 1917, all but four states had at least partially adopted direct primaries for statewide elections. Primaries were slower to come to presidential selection — the only race in the United States that crosses state lines — but since the 1970s, both major parties have used primaries to select nominees. Convention votes confirming those choices were mere formalities. For the last 50 years, conventions have been like weddings — a party, but with a legally meaningful ceremony at the center.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

But Vice President Kamala Harris’ path to the Democratic nomination was unique. With President Joe Biden withdrawing from the race after the primary had already effectively concluded, she is the first major-party presidential nominee in a half-century not to be selected through a primary. And this year’s convention was like a wedding reception without a ceremony; Harris and the Democratic Party had already tied the knot weeks earlier during a virtual roll call vote of delegates.

As evidenced both by polling and by the rapturous reception the Harris-Walz ticket received at the convention, most Democrats are happy with their nominee. This raises a question: If we can dispense with the primary for the highest office in the country, and few people seem to miss it — not even Democratic voters who were deprived of the chance to participate in selecting her — what’s the point of primaries?

Primaries do have some arguments in their favor. For one, rigorous analysis by political scientists Shigeo Hirano and James Snyder Jr. demonstrates that direct primaries promote more qualified candidates, especially in competitive races. And although primary elections are relatively rare internationally, so is the United States’ two-party system. In most other democracies, interparty competition among ideologically similar parties keeps the organizations honest; in the U.S., intraparty competition might be necessary.

But there are also compelling arguments against primaries. During the Jim Crow era, white-only primaries were one method (among many) Southern states used to prevent Black citizens from exercising political power. Today, white voters participate in primary elections at higher rates than most minority groups, who are more likely to identify and register as independent. Some studies suggest that primary elections create extra hurdles for women and candidates of color (like, say, Kamala Harris).

The biggest knock on primaries is that they draw a small and unrepresentative electorate. In most states, voter turnout in primary elections is less than half of what it is in general elections, and the voters who do show up to cast primary ballots tend to be the most ideologically extreme partisans. This means that primaries often function less to produce candidates in the mainstream of public opinion, and more to enforce extreme partisan positions. Instead of selecting candidates in smoke-filled rooms of insiders, these decisions are now made by party loyalists in angry social media feeds.

Even worse, partisan geographic sorting and gerrymandering have conspired to render most general election races in the United States uncompetitive. This is true for both federal and state legislatures. In many of these races, the low-turnout primary election is the only real competition candidates face; according to data from Unite America, in 2022, 83 percent of House races were effectively determined in primary elections by just 8 percent of the voting-age public.

This doesn’t mean we should just do away with primaries. This would remove the only remaining public accountability for noncompetitive races. But the presidential contest this year is certainly competitive — more so with Harris as the Democratic nominee than primary-winner Biden. So primary elections do not seem to have been necessary — or even useful — for Americans to have a real choice at the ballot box this November.

Harris’ unusual path to the nomination provides Democrats, and all Americans, with practical experience of a strong party choosing its nominee, rather than beholden to an ideologically extreme primary electorate. If we like the results, perhaps it’s time to consider reforming our system of primary elections.

Read More

"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

Getty Images, Grace Cary

Stopping the Descent Toward Banana Republic Elections

President Trump’s election-related executive order begins by pointing out practices in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and elsewhere that outperform the U.S. But it is Trump’s order itself that really demonstrates how far we’ve fallen behind. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump has tried to do.

Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election sure to be close, and important to his presidency. The leader of one side in such a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote" pin.
Getty Images, William Whitehurst

Most Americans’ Votes Don’t Matter in Deciding Elections

New research from the Unite America Institute confirms a stark reality: Most ballots cast in American elections don’t matter in deciding the outcome. In 2024, just 14% of eligible voters cast a meaningful vote that actually influenced the outcome of a U.S. House race. For state house races, on average across all 50 states, just 13% cast meaningful votes.

“Too many Americans have no real say in their democracy,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano. “Every voter deserves a ballot that not only counts, but that truly matters. We should demand better than ‘elections in name only.’”

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand Placing Ballot in Box With American Flag
Getty Images, monkeybusinessimages

We Can Fix This: Our Politics Really Can Work – These Stories Show How

As American politics polarizes ever further, voters across the political spectrum agree that our current system is not delivering for the American people. Eighty-five percent of Americans feel most elected officials don’t care what people like them think. Eighty-eight percent of them say our political system is broken.

Whether it’s the quality and safety of their kids’ schools, housing affordability and rising homelessness, scarce and pricey healthcare, or any number of other issues that touch Americans’ everyday lives, the lived experience of polarization comes from such problems—and elected officials’ failure to address them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why America’s Elections Will Never Be the Same After Trump
text
Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash

Why America’s Elections Will Never Be the Same After Trump

Donald Trump wasted no time when he returned to the White House. Within hours, he signed over 200 executive orders, rapidly dismantling years of policy and consolidating control with the stroke of a pen. But the frenzy of reversals was only the surface. Beneath it lies a deeper, more troubling transformation: presidential elections have become all-or-nothing battles, where the victor rewrites the rules of government and the loser’s agenda is annihilated.

And it’s not just the orders. Trump’s second term has unleashed sweeping deportations, the purging of federal agencies, and a direct assault on the professional civil service. With the revival of Schedule F, regulatory rollbacks, and the targeting of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, the federal bureaucracy is being rigged to serve partisan ideology. Backing him is a GOP-led Congress, too cowardly—or too complicit—to assert its constitutional authority.

Keep ReadingShow less