Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Marjorie Taylor Greene Resigns: The Primary Problem Exposes America’s Broken Election System

With Trump’s threats and only 7% of voters deciding most races, Greene’s exit spotlights America’s broken primaries.

Opinion

​Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation highlights the Primary Problem—tiny slivers of voters deciding elections. Here’s why primary reform and open primaries matter.

Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker

The Primary Problem strikes again. In announcing her intention to resign from Congress in January, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) became the latest politician to quit rather than face a primary challenge from her own party.

It’s ironic that Rep. Greene has become a victim of what we at Unite America call the "Primary Problem," given that we often point to her as an example of the kind of elected official our broken primary system produces. As we wrote about her and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “only a tiny sliver of voters cast meaningful votes that elected AOC and MTG to Congress – 7% and 20%, respectively.”


Of course, Reps. Greene and Ocasio-Cortez are not the exceptions — they’re the rule. In 2024, just 7% of voters elected 87% of the U.S. House — because most races were effectively decided in party primaries. Next year, the Cook Political Report predicts that 92% of House races and 83% of Senate races will be decided in primaries. How many voters will decide? Likely somewhere between 7-10%.

But while Rep. Greene might be an unlikely victim of party leaders weaponizing primaries to enforce loyalty, the dynamics are the same as other retirements we’ve seen recently, from Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) to Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME).

It goes like this: You make a high-profile stand against your party, you immediately face the wrath of party leaders and primary voters, and when it becomes clear you might not survive your next primary, you decide to step aside rather than face that indignity.

After being one of President Donald Trump’s most ferocious supporters and defenders since joining Congress, Rep. Greene drew his ire in leading the charge to release the Epstein files — among other policy disagreements.

As he’s done repeatedly when members of his party oppose him, Trump immediately threatened Rep. Greene with a primary challenge, making it clear that he’d support a candidate more loyal to him. When she announced her resignation, he explicitly said that she called it quits because she didn’t want to “face a Primary Challenger with a strong Trump Endorsement.”

After announcing her resignation, Greene underscored the personal toll of party discipline, writing, “I refuse to be a ‘battered wife’ hoping it all goes away and gets better.”

At the end of the day, Greene’s resignation isn’t just about one politician bowing to Trump’s threats. It’s about a system that rewards loyalty to party bosses and donors over constituents. As Greene herself put it, “Congress has become nothing more than a money laundering operation for the Political Industrial Complex.”

As Tangle Executive Editor Isaac Saul wrote, “She’s now leaving because the president said he would primary her, an experience she knows will be hell, and she doesn’t want to stick around to be treated like a villain by the very movement she ran to represent.”

Primary threats — whether from Trump or Democratic leaders — are effective because in safe districts, you only need to mobilize a sliver of voters to take someone out. It wouldn’t necessarily matter if the majority of Rep. Greene’s constituents supported her, because primary voters are all that matter. At the end of the day, we’ll never know if Rep. Greene’s public stand was supported by a majority of her constituents. And that’s the real problem here.

If we want elected officials liberated to represent most of their voters, we need to make general elections matter again — when most people vote. That means open, all-candidate primaries — where every voter gets a say, and candidates have to win the support of a majority, not just the 7% in party primaries.


Ross Sherman is the Press Director for Unite America.


Read More

Two people at separate voting booths, filling out a ballot.

Voters cast their ballots in Colorado's primary election at the Central Library on June 30, 2026 in Denver, Colorado. Voters are deciding on candidates for Colorado Governor, US Senate and other races.

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Closed Primaries Let 7% of Voters Choose 87% of Congress

Consider this wacky football scenario: What if only fans who declared their team loyalty before the game are allowed to watch the Super Bowl? Yep, unless you pick a team, you can’t get into the stadium. This is similar to how closed primary elections work, in which only registered voters of a specific political party can participate in that party's primary. That’s the brilliant analogy the Unite America Institute uses in a new, short explainer video describing the highly undemocratic system that dominates American primary elections.

“In most elections, the real contest is not the general election but the party primary held months before,” said Beth Hladick, Policy Director at Unite America. The new video is part of a year-long fellowship project: the Democracy and Public Service Initiative, a partnership between the National Academy of Public Administration and the Bridge Alliance.

Keep ReadingShow less
People attend a rally with signs that read, "Abolish ICE," and "Money out of politics."

People hold signs as Democratic Congressional candidate Brad Lander speaks during an election eve rally at Silo on June 22, 2026 in the East Williamsburg neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images

Facts Don’t Win Elections. Stories Do.

As a student, I was taught that politics is a contest of ideas. Experience has shown me otherwise.

In a recent New York Times interview with Ezra Klein, conservative activist Chris Rufo captured this reality succinctly: “While we should have the facts on our side, and while we should use logic, by itself, it’s insufficient. Politics operates on a deeper level, an emotional level. Politics occurs on the field of sentiment and public opinion much more than on the field of abstract argumentation.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A crowd of protestors standing on a sidewalk, many holding protest signs.

Suffragists protest President Woodrow Wilson in Chicago in October 1916, four years before ratification of the 19th Amendment. The history of voting rights has never been a clean march forward; even rights later treated as inevitable were won through pressure, backlash and years of state-by-state organizing.

Universal History Archive

What 250 Years of Voting Rights Battles Tell Us About Today

Happy Fourth of July, on this 250th anniversary of the United States. We’re living through extraordinary times in American democracy, as President Trump presses for greater federal control over elections and redistricting slips loose from its once-a-decade rhythm. As always, Votebeat is focused on an essential part of it: who gets to vote, who makes the rules, and what those votes are worth.

That question has loomed over the nation from the beginning. Voting history is often framed as a steady expansion from white male landowners to everyone else. The truth is messier. States have always experimented with expanding the franchise, retracting it, and expanding it again.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records

Texas Department of Public Safety Region II Headquarters on Oct. 1, 2025 in Houston. The state is using DPS records to cross-check a list of registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens using a federal database.

Antranik Tavitian for The Texas Tribune

Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office is now checking whether 2,724 registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens may have already provided proof of citizenship to the Texas Department of Public Safety, elections division director Christina Adkins said during a meeting with county election administrators earlier this month. That check comes after county elections officials found the federal database used to generate the list flagged some voters who had already given citizenship documentation to DPS when they registered to vote.

Texas officials in October sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against a federal database used to verify citizenship. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.

Keep ReadingShow less