Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Which states will be the next to consider open primaries?

Nevada election

Voters in Nevada may not be the only one considered a move to open primaries during the 2024 elections.

Trevor Bexon/Getty Images

After achieving the first step in establishing open primaries in Nevada last month, advocates have set their sights on further victories in 2024.

The measure approved by Nevada voters requires a second round of approval in two years before switching the method of electing officials. The ballot initiative passed in November would switch the state to an open primary system in which all candidates appear on one ballot with the five receiving the most votes – regardless of party – advancing to a ranked-choice general election.

So the groups working in the Silver State must continue rallying support over the next two years. But similar work will be taking place in other states as open primaries advocates seek to expand beyond the 23 states that currently use some form of the system.


Efforts are underway in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oregon and South Dakota to pass similar ballot initiatives in 2024, according to Jeremy Gruber, senior vice president of Open Primaries. Such successes would build on momentum that Gruber attributed to the emphasis on education and organization. He hopes that open conversations and building connections are key steps towards adopting open primaries in other states and relieving the hyper-polarization in politics.

Open primaries allow voters to participate in any party’s primary election regardless of their own party affiliation (although there are different levels of permission that vary by state). This also includes allowing voters to change their party affiliation before voting.

In contrast, closed primaries — the election system used by about half the country — require individuals to affiliate with a party in order to vote in a nominating contest and are limited to only that party’s primaries. Supporters of closed primaries argue that the system ensures members of another party do not sabotage the nominating process and grants the rights of parties and affiliated voters the freedom of association.

Conversely, proponents of open primaries insist their system reduces polarization while increasing competitiveness, voter turnout, and the integrity of the electoral process. They also argue that primaries should be accessible for all registered voters because they are publicly funded.

“Competition is healthy; it weeds out corruption, it weeds out complacency, it focuses priorities, and it requires politicians to be responsive to their voters,” Gruber said. “This is what we need more of in order for our democracy to continue to function in a healthy way.”

There has been an increasing number of independent voters, resulting in that demographic capturing the largest affiliation.

Since the 2020 election, there has been an addition of nearly 7,000 independent voters in South Dakota. Under the state’s system of closed primaries, those individuals were barred from participating in the primaries this year. However, South Dakotans have proposed a ballot initiative that would implement open primaries for the congressional, gubernatorial, legislative and county elections. Voters will decide whether to make the change during the 2024 election.

Gruber is optimistic about what is happening there.

“South Dakota is an example of voters, both independent and party voters, who are looking for something different. They're looking for a system that puts pressure on the political class to be accountable and responsible, and they see open primaries as an important step in that direction,” he said.

Advocates argue open primaries could be the key reform in empowering voters to show up to the polls and interact with their elected officials. They also believe candidates will not be as strictly tied to party positions because they would want to appeal across partisan lines.

“Open primaries is the beginning of a path forward for voters to be more empowered to take control of their elections,” Gruber said.


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