Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Most congressional elections have already been decided – by just 8 percent of voters

Opinion

Texas primary voter

Texas primary voters effectively decided the outcome of 36 of the state's 38 House races.

Montinique Monroe/Getty Images

Troiano is the executive director of Unite America, a nonpartisan organization focused on defending and reforming our democracy.

Voters will head to the polls throughout Tuesday to choose who will represent them in Congress, on high-stakes issues ranging from inflation to abortion. Yet the vast majority of congressional elections were effectively decided months ago, by a small and unrepresentative sliver of the electorate in partisan primaries – depriving millions of general election voters of any meaningful voice.

As a result, while which party will gain a legislative majority remains in question, we can be certain that the next Congress will be the most polarized and least accountable in our lifetimes, as this “Primary Problem” worsens with each election cycle.

To have a bigger impact on who we elect, we must change how we elect. Partisan primaries should be replaced with nonpartisan primaries that give all voters a say in who represents them, regardless of party. Alaska recently became the fourth state to do so. Nevada may be next.


Just 8 percent of eligible voters nationally voted in primaries that effectively determined the outcome of 83 percent of U.S. House seats this year. That’s according to a new analysis by Unite America, the nonpartisan election reform organization I run. This imbalance, between how few voters ultimately decide many congressional elections, is due to the fact that the vast majority of districts are “safe” for one party or another – meaning the winner of the dominant party’s primary is virtually guaranteed to win the general election. Very few voters participate in these primaries, and those who do are usually the strongest partisans.

The Primary Problem is worse than it even appears on the surface: In more than a third of House contests for safe seats (130), the dominant party’s primary was uncontested – giving voters no ability to choose their representative. In another 32 of these contests, the nominee won with just a plurality of votes, not a majority. And across nine states with closed primaries, nearly 13 million Americans who choose not to affiliate with either major party were locked out of participating altogether.

It’s not a problem unique to one party: In Texas, for example, primaries dictated the outcomes in 36 of the state’s 38 congressional districts – including in 15 runoff contests in which less than 3 percent of eligible voters turned out. In Massachusetts, the entire nine-member congressional delegation was effectively determined in the Democratic primary, where no candidate faced a single opponent. Can the November election even be called an election?

Primaries present an acute threat to democracy within the Republican Party, as increased polarization manifests as outright hostility to free and fair elections. In 117 “safe” GOP congressional districts, representing over a quarter of the next Congress, Republicans nominated candidates who have fully denied the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to FiveThirtyEight. Further, all four House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump and ran for reelection in partisan primaries were defeated by Trump-backed challengers – with $53 million dollars of help from Democrats who sought to maximize their chances in the general election by running against a more extreme opponent.

What happens when both parties make standing up for democracy wholly incompatible with winning a Republican primary in any red state or district? Every election conducted under the design of our current system brings us closer to losing our republic altogether.

The only three Republican members of Congress who voted to impeach or convict Trump to make it to November’s elections are Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, Rep. David Valadao of California and Sen. Lisa Murkowski Alaska – who all hail from states that have scrapped partisan primaries.

Washington, California and Alaska have adopted nonpartisan primaries, in which all eligible voters can participate and all candidates run on a single ballot. Washington and California advance the top two finishers from the primary, regardless of party; Alaska advances the top four finishers to the final round, which is determined by an instant runoff.

Alaska’s system can be a model for our country. Almost every race remains competitive in the general election with multiple Democrats and Republicans on the ballot, giving every voter a real voice. There are no forgone conclusions based simply on the letter next to a candidate’s name on the ballot.

Nevada may follow in Alaska’s footsteps if voters pass a ballot initiative to adopt nonpartisan primaries this election, giving 600,000-plus independent voters a voice in elections they are currently prohibited from participating in. Both political parties oppose the measure — but a majority of voters have an opportunity to show them who is truly the boss on Tuesday.

Primary reform can ensure November elections matter for all voters – producing better choices, giving more power to millions of Americans who deserve to be heard, and fostering a more representative government at a time when democracy itself hangs in the balance.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less