Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Closed primaries, gerrymandering eliminate competition for House seats

Man sitting in a chair near voting stations

An election official staffs a voting location in Lansing, Mich., during the state's Aug. 6, primary.

Emily Elconin for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Meyers is executive editor of The Fulcrum.

There are 435 voting members of the House of Representatives. But few of those districts — 55, to be exact — will be decided on Election Day, according to new data from the nonprofit organization Unite America. That’s because the vast majority of races were effectively decided during the primaries.

The research data goes deep into what Unite America calls the “Primary Problem,” in which few Americans are determining winners of House elections.


According to UA, 87 percent of House seats are “safe,” meaning they are noncompetitive and considered a lock to be one by the dominant political party. Voters still get to cast ballots in the general elections for those districts, but the candidates, the political operatives and the media already know how things will turn out because partisan gerrymandering has effectively guaranteed the outcomes.

“In November, blue districts will stay blue and red districts will stay red,” UA states in its analysis.

But gerrymandering only tells part of the story. For a variety of reasons, few people participate in primaries. In fact, according to UA, only 7 percent of voting age Americans cast ballots in those 380 safe-seat primaries.

“These numbers speak to the despair many Americans have that their vote does not seem to matter,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano.

The research identified three factors leading to such low participation numbers: closed primaries, uncompetitive primaries and lack of interest.

Many states allow only people who are registered with a political party to vote in partisan primaries, even though the elections are state-funded and -operated. This year, 17.6 million people were not permitted to vote in decisive primaries across 15 states that have closed primaries.

Some states allow voters to participate in primaries even if they are not registered with a party. And four states have eliminated separate, partisan primaries in favor of single-ballot primaries in which all candidates run together. Alaska, California, Louisiana and Washington each have a version of an all-candidate primary, with variations on the number of candidates who advance to the general election.

UA found that in those four states, 29 percent of House seats will be decided in November — triple the percentage of races in states with partisan primaries.

Troiano and Unite America identified a “record number” of 2024 ballot initiatives that would create open primaries in more states. Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and South Dakota will determine whether to move to open, all-candidate primaries when they cast ballots this fall.

In addition, people in Ohio will vote on whether to establish an independent redistricting commission, which would take mapping out of politicians’ hands. Recent polling indicates the proposal will pass. Currently, nine states use independent redistricting for congressional maps and 10 use them for state legislative redistricting.

“We have an opportunity to usher in a new era of politics where all voters’ voices matter and where our leaders represent a true majority — not just the 7 percent who determine party primaries,” Troiano said.

Among those voters eligible to participate in primaries, many saw ballots with only one candidate running for the dominant party’s nomination (169 out of 380 safe seats).

“In other words, nearly 40% of Congress was effectively elected without having to earn a single vote — leaving 101,486,410 voters (39% of eligible Americans) without a meaningful choice in who represents them,” the report states.

This is the third election cycle in which Unite America has studied these issues, and the “primary problem” is growing.

In 2020, 10 percent of eligible voters effectively elected 83 percent of House members, and in 2022, just 8 percent chose 83 percent, according to UA.. This is happening at a time when more and more Americans are declaring themselves to be independent of political parties.


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