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

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
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less