Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less