Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

multiethnic American voters participating in the US election, showcasing the concept of choice in a democracy

Presidents who lost the popular vote often faced economic turmoil. See the pattern from Harrison to Trump and how a 50-state strategy could change it.

Alan Mazzocco/Getty Images

Path Forward from Economic Consequences of Non-Popular Vote Presidents

While losing the popular vote does not inherently cause economic ruin, the structural political weakness of entering office without a democratic majority mandate often compounded the economic challenges their administrations faced. These terms were marked by distinct economic hardships, structural imbalances, or severe financial crises.

Destabilizing Partisan Protectionism

Keep ReadingShow less
people filling out their ballots at voting booths and submitting their vote.

Independent voters may hand Democrats control of Congress this fall — but as history shows, they'll get nothing in return. Here's how to change that.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Swinging Outcomes Is Not Enough

The midterms are six weeks away, and polls predict that independent voters, who broke for Donald Trump in 2024, are planning on voting for Democrats by wide margins. Among Latinos, the numbers are staggering, to the point that the Republican gerrymanders in Florida and Texas may actually result in Democratic victories.

If the Democrats take control of Congress, it will be because of independents. And what do independents get in return?

Keep ReadingShow less
Diverse People At Voting Booth. Vote Here Elections Sign

A political scientist examines how automatic voter registration is quietly turning non-affiliation into America's largest voting bloc.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

When Neither Party Is the Default: Rethinking Representation As America’s Electorate Changes

For most of my career as a political scientist, representation was the central theme of my teaching and research. Early on, I studied how legislators understood their responsibilities to constituents — whether they saw themselves as delegates carrying out constituent mandates, trustees exercising independent judgment, or politicos combining both. That work asked a question that still matters: What does it mean to represent the public in a changing democracy?

Today I find myself asking a related question: What happens when the electorate changes but the institutions built to represent it do not?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less