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

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less