Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Most Americans agree on these two principles of democracy

Most Americans agree on these two principles of democracy
Getty Images

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. His new book, “ The Primary Solution,” is now available for pre-order.

It’s no secret that most Americans are frustrated with politics. We’re sick of our political leaders not working together to solve important issues — even when the majority of us agree on how to fix them. We’re tired of the vitriol and the negativity. We don’t want to see a rematch of the 2020 presidential election, yet that’s exactly what we’re likely to get.


But while poll after poll shows that Americans are feeling down about our democracy now, there’s a silver lining: We actually agree on a basic vision for what our it should look like.

According to a 2023 Citizen Data poll commissioned by Unite America, Americans overwhelmingly agree that two things should be true about every taxpayer-funded election: 1. All voters should be able to vote for any candidate, regardless of party; and 2. Candidates should have to win the support of a majority of voters to take office. In the poll, more than 90% agreed with the first statement, and more than 75% agreed with the second.



These principles are so reasonable that in the same poll, 70% of respondents thought that they were already true. The unfortunate reality, though, is that those two statements are only true in four states: Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Washington — all states that have eliminated partisan primaries, in one way or another.

In 2022, Unite America — the organization that I lead — published groundbreaking research on the “Primary Problem” with our politics: that a mere 8% of voters elected 83% of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2022. This shocking reality exists for a couple key reasons. First and foremost, 46 states have party primaries and the majority of them restrict which voters can participate. The worst offenders are the nine “closed” primary states, where independents are banned from casting ballots altogether. Second, because of partisan gerrymandering, most general elections aren’t competitive. So whoever wins the primary, will almost certainly take office, even though millions of voters are banned from participating.

The Primary Problem reared its ugly head earlier this month when Rhode Island and Utah held special primary elections for the U.S. House. Rhode Island is a “safe” Democratic seat in the general election, just as Utah is a “safe” seat for Republicans. In last Tuesday’s election, just 10% of eligible voters in Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District cast ballots, and only about 16% of eligible voters did so in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District.



Clearly, these two elections violate the two key principles that most Americans agree should be true.

As I mentioned earlier, there are four states that have tackled the Primary Problem. Louisiana eliminated primaries altogether in the 1970s, opting instead to have a general election with all candidates on the ballot. If nobody secures a majority, there’s a runoff election between the top-two finishers. Washington and California have top-two nonpartisan primaries, where all candidates appear on the primary ballot and the top two advance to the general election. Finally, Alaska voters adopted a top-four nonpartisan primary in 2020, where the top four vote-getters in the primary advance to the general. The general election is then decided by an instant runoff, ensuring the winner secures a majority.

While each of these four states pursued a slightly different solution to the Primary Problem, they all fulfill the two key principles of reform that most Americans agree on. Every eligible voter can cast a ballot for any candidate they wish, and winning candidates must earn support from a majority of the electorate. Replacing partisan primaries with nonpartisan primaries, and implementing an instant runoff in the general election, is one powerful way to do that.

According to research Unite America has released over the past year, nonpartisan primaries give voters better representation, improve governance, and decrease polarization. For example, before its top-two nonpartisan primary, California was the most polarized state in the nation — by far. But from 2013-2018, it’s one of only five states in the country that has become less polarized. Californians’ opinion of their state government has also improved.

Similarly, the Louisiana State Legislature routinely ranks among the least polarized in the country. To provide a real-world example, its runoff system helps explain how it was the first state in the Deep South to expand Medicaid. In 2015, Democrat John Bel Edwards won a close runoff election for governor. If Louisiana had party primaries, it's likely that his pro-gun, anti-abortion positions would have resulted in defeat. However, because he appealed to the majority of the electorate — not just primary voters — he won the runoff election. Gov. Edwards then joined with moderate Republicans to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, delivering better health outcomes to its residents compared to its neighbors.

Crucially, in all four states, more voters are casting ballots in elections that will actually determine the outcome.

Even though the mood might seem sour in the country right now, there are tangible reasons for optimism. Americans are ready to change our election system, we agree on some bedrock principles that get us there, and we support a powerful solution: nonpartisan primaries. 2022 polling found that nearly two-thirds support replacing partisan primaries with nonpartisan primaries. That includes 56% of Republicans, 68% of independents, 71% of Democrats.

Four states have already done this, and more could and should soon do the same.


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