Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Primary Problem: Why Most 2026 Elections Will Be Decided Before November

Millions of Independents will be shut out of the 2026 midterms—here’s what that means for democracy.

Opinion

I Voted stickers

Millions of Independents will be shut out of the 2026 midterms—here’s what that means for democracy.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

The 2026 midterm elections should be the American people’s next best opportunity to issue a verdict on the direction of the country. In a functioning democracy, the outcome would offer a clear signal: do most voters want change or to stay the course?

But in reality, we won’t get a clear signal because our broken election system makes it nearly impossible. We already know that 80% of Senate races and 90% of U.S. House races won’t be decided in November, when most of us vote. They’ll be decided months earlier in party primaries—where turnout is low, millions of independents are locked out, and ideological special interests hold outsized sway. Technically, we’ll get an outcome in 2026—but it’s hard to argue it will reflect the will of most Americans.


The problem isn’t just who gets elected—it’s how they get elected. It’s easy to blame the most extreme voices in Congress, but the real issue is the system that rewards them. In 2024, 87% of U.S. House races were effectively decided in party primaries—by just 7% of voters. No wonder only about 10% of Americans feel the government represents them well, while 80% don’t believe elected officials care what they think.

That same Primary Problem is already looming over 2026—with implications for voters, parties, and the country.

For voters, we’ll be subjected to yet another “heads I win, tails you lose” contest. More Americans identify as politically independent than as Democrats or Republicans—yet 16.6 million independents will be disenfranchised by closed primaries in 16 states. And while we talk about a two-party system, it’s really two one-party systems. In most general elections, the outcome is predetermined. Without real competition, there’s no real choice, accountability, or representation.

The parties seem fine with this, at least for now. The system protects their hold on power, despite low favorability—Democrats at 40%, Republicans at 44%. They don’t need to be broadly popular to win; they just need to be less unpopular than the other side. In any other industry, a new product would already be on the shelves. In politics, the existing duopoly conspires to block new competition.

But the Primary Problem is already giving both parties severe heartburn heading into 2026. Just ask Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. He’s being challenged by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for being insufficiently loyal to Trump—despite voting with him over 99% of the time. Democrats face a similar dynamic: activist and former DNC Co-Vice Chair David Hogg has pledged to spend millions targeting incumbents he views as too willing to compromise. The likely outcome in both cases? Parties pulled further to the extremes—and further from the voters.

Party leaders know this could cost them seats—and majorities—because it’s already happened. In 2022, GOP primary winners in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona went on to lose winnable Senate races because they were well outside the mainstream. That same year, Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader was defeated in a primary, and the seat flipped Republican in November.

The answer isn’t a white knight politician. It’s a political reform: open primaries for all voters and all candidates, regardless of party. In an open, all-candidate primary, everyone runs on the same ballot and the top finishers advance to the general election. Leaders must appeal to a broad electorate from day one. The threat of being “primaried” by ideological hardliners vanishes—and general elections start to matter again, even in deep-blue or deep-red districts.

This isn’t hypothetical. Alaska adopted all-candidate primaries in 2022 and doubled the number of voters who cast meaningful votes (i.e., votes that actually mattered in determining election outcomes). Oklahoma may consider a similar reform in 2026. And New Mexico recently passed bipartisan legislation to allow independents to vote in party primaries—with Pennsylvania potentially next.

The Primary Problem didn’t appear overnight—and it won’t be solved overnight. But reform is not only possible, it’s already happening. The sooner we open primaries to all voters and all candidates, the sooner we can build a representative democracy that works for all Americans.

Nick Troiano is the executive director of Unite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. He’s also the author of “ The Primary Solution.”


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less