Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less