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

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less