Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Bids for open primaries falling short in both Florida and Alaska

Florida voter

While a majority of Florida voters supported moving to an open primary system, the total wasn't enough to grant approval.

Eva Marie Uzcategui/Getty Images

Ballot measures that would have opened primaries to all voters, and advanced the top vote-getters to the November ballot regardless of party, appear destined for defeat in both the biggest politically purple state and the physically biggest state.

While a solid majority of Floridians voted to allow every voter to participate in the often crucial nominating contests, the measure came up about 30,000 votes short of the three-fifths supermajority required. A similar proposal in Alaska was garnering only 43 support with four in five precincts reporting Wednesday.

Republican and Democratic leaders generally oppose open primaries, which would dilute their dominance over elections by taking away the guarantee one candidate from each would make the November ballot. Supporters maintain the overriding benefit for democracy is giving more of a voice to the huge blocks of voters (pluralities in some states) that don't align with the major parties — and to candidates who have broken free of the duopoly.


Both states are among the few that require voters to register with one of the two major parties if they want to vote in primaries. Most places allow some sort of crossover or independent participation. These are the details of the proposals:

Florida

While the proposal came up short, garnering 57 percent, proponents were heartened by the broad support it received from Republicans, Democrats and independents. More than 5.8 million people voted for the measure — more than who cast ballots for either President Trump, who carried the state, or former Vice President Joe Biden.

The measure's defeat means Florida's current primary system will stay intact, only allowing voters registered with a major party to participate. This system does not permit the state's 3.8 unaffiliated voters (30 percent of the electorate) to have a say in which candidates make it on the November ballot.

Open Primaries, the national group advocating for electoral reform, said although Florida was a heartbreaking loss, it remains committed to pushing for change next year and beyond. Their argument is that open primaries make the political system work better by rewarding candidates who appeal to the center instead of to the red or blue bases. Critics say that may be true, but often at the expense of Black and Latino candidates.

Alaska

The outcome of a sweeping democracy reform initiative had not yet been called since officials were still counting ballots in a fifth of the precincts. Results may take days to finalize, but the current margin of 23,000 votes will be tough to overcome.

The measure would open up congressional and state government primaries to all voters, regardless of party, starting in 2022. Many voters in Alaska aren't affiliated with either major party, so proponents of this expansion say it would ensure their voices are heard.

In addition to open primaries, the initiative would have also established ranked-choice voting for statewide races and bolstered transparency around political spending.


Read More

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values

FrameWorks Institute

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values: How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change, produced by the FrameWorks Institute, explores how widely shared yet politically contested values can be used to strengthen public support for systemic reform. Values are central to how advocates communicate the importance of their work, and they can motivate collective action toward big, structural changes. This has become especially urgent in a climate where executive orders are targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and some nonprofits are being labeled as threats based on their stated missions. Many civil society organizations are now grappling with how to communicate their values effectively and safely.

The report focuses on Fairness, Stability, and Freedom because they resonate across the U.S. public and are used by communicators across the political spectrum. Unlike values more closely associated with one ideological camp — such as Tradition on the right or Solidarity on the left — these three values are broadly recognizable but highly contested. Each contains multiple variants, and their impact depends on how clearly advocates define them and how they are paired with specific issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

American flag funnel with money

Illustration provided

Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

Reducing the influence of money pouring into presidential politics since the 2010 Citizens United decision may actually be possible by addressing the "winner-take-all" (WTA) structure of the Electoral College. By changing how electoral votes are allocated, the incentive to concentrate money in a few swing states could be reduced.

The winner-take-all (WTA) feature of the Electoral College narrows the focus of massive campaign expenditures in a “Funnel Effect”* to a handful of closely divided battleground states. Because candidates have little to gain from spending in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind, they concentrate all their financial resources on 15 or 16 states, or in some cycles, as few as seven key swing states. All this could change if the "battleground state" phenomenon were taken away from the wealthy, as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) would accomplish.

Keep ReadingShow less