Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

America’s primary polarization problem: Can we do better next time?

Opinion

divided America
Yamada Taro/Getty Images

Richard Davies is a podcast consultant, host and solutions journalist at daviescontent.com. He co-hosts the podcasts “How Do We Fix It?” and “Let’s Find Common Ground."

Here’s one thing progressives, liberals, moderates, conservatives and even many populists can agree on: The primary system in most states is broken. They all might even say, “It’s rigged!”

In a surprisingly large number of states, only registered Democrats and Republicans have been allowed to vote in this year’s primaries. The largest self-identified group of voters — independents — was shut out of the process. According to new survey data compiled by Unite America, a nonpartisan political organization that backs electoral reform, only 8.2 percent of eligible voters have cast ballots in primaries that have decided more than 80 percent of Congress.

Now that primary voting season is nearly complete, we’ve again witnessed a system that discourages turnout and boosts support for rigid partisans, who seek to rally their party base at the the cost of making deals with politicians from opposing parties.


“The way our system is set up right now, candidates have an incentive in a Republican primary to go as far right as possible. Candidates in a Democratic [primary] go as far left as possible, because the people who vote in these elections are die-hard voters,” said Story Hinckley, national political reporter at the Christian Science Monitor. “Candidates are trying to appeal to the people who turn out and they are often the most extreme voters,”

Gerrymandered districts, with electoral maps drawn by the two political parties instead of independent commissions, make the problem worse. Most members of Congress come from deep red or blue districts.

The primary process wasn’t supposed to work this way. For many decades candidates were chosen by party bosses in “smoked-filled rooms.” But then came the 1960s. Popular movements for civil rights, women’s rights and widespread opposition to the U.S.-led war in Vietnam resulted in social and political changes. The old way of picking presidential candidates, governors and members of Congress was swept away.

The idea was that public participation in primaries would let many more people into the process, giving them a much bigger say in who’s picked to run in the November general election.

The old system “left the party with some say over who represented the party,” said constitutional law scholar Rick Pildes. “I think the primary system that we have is one of the significant threats to the democratic system,” he explained on the latest episode of Common Ground Committee’s “ Let’s Find Common Ground ” podcast.

“The concern is that the candidates who have the broadest appeal in a general election aren’t able to get through the primaries.”

This may well be the case in some prominent races this November. For instance, Trump-backed Republicans in several Northeastern states won their party primaries, but are now considered underdogs in races that were easily won by the GOP four years ago. Highly popular moderate Republican governors in Massachusetts and Maryland decided not to run for re-election. Party nominees for November’s election are much more rigidly partisan.

Last month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell predicted “a greater likelihood” that the House will flip from Democratic to Republican control than the Senate. “Senate races are just different — they are statewide, candidate quality has a lot to do with the outcome,” he told a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Kentucky.

“McConnell has long worried that subpar candidates could play into Democrats' hands,” reported NBC News.

On “Let’s Find Common Ground,” we heard sharp criticisms of the primary process from former Democratic and Republican party leaders and members of Congress.

Former Rep. David Jolly, who left the GOP to become one of the founders of a new third party, Forward, told us that America’s way of picking candidates for public office is an outlier.

“The United States is alone on an island with an entrenched duopoly. Most leading nations today have multiparty democracies with three, four or five competitive parties, and the data shows that voters feel better represented,” Jolly said. In many democracies overseas, “they have better policy outcomes.”

What kind of reforms should we consider?

Ranked-choice voting is one. Open primaries are another. Alaska’s passage of a ballot initiative in 2020 radically overhauled the system, getting rid of the state’s party-run primaries. Today in Alaska, political parties no longer select their candidates to appear on the general election ballot. Instead, open primaries allow for all voters to be involved.

Listen here for more criticisms of today’s primary problem and what may be done to improve it.


Read More

Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
Social Security card, treasury check and $100 bills

A Social Security inspector general found $1 billion in improper SSI payments tied to earnings alerts left unresolved for two years. Here’s what went wrong.

JJ Gouin/Getty Images

$1 Billion, 733 Days: Inside Social Security’s Improper-Payment Backlog

Social Security's inspector general opened its books this week and found a number that should stop any controller cold: roughly $1 billion in improper Supplemental Security Income payments, made to 333,800 recipients, sitting on top of a backlog the agency has known about for years. The cause was not a hacker, not a sophisticated fraud ring, and not a policy loophole. It was an earnings alert nobody closed out.

Here is how the mechanism actually works, and why it matters more than the headline figure. When a recipient's reported earnings change, the Social Security Administration's system generates an alert flagging that the payment amount may need adjustment. An employee is supposed to resolve that alert, verify the wage documentation, and correct the payment before the gap compounds. The inspector general's office pulled a sample of 100 such cases. Only 20 had been resolved. Sixty-three had gone untouched entirely, left pending for an average of 733 days, just over two years. Seventeen more were marked "cleared" without the wage documentation ever being fully verified, meaning the case was closed on paper while the underlying question remained open.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands raised in the air, holding each other.​

America’s polarization has closed us off to each other’s humanity. The Golden Rule and the churches may be the way back to common ground.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? How Trump Is Destroying America's Soul

The recent actions by both some Jewish leaders and pro-Palestinian activists against NY mayor Zohran Mamdani are an example of just how far our nation has come from our ideals under the presidency of Donald Trump.

Even with Mamdani's consistent pro-Palestinian statements, he was called a "coward" and a "sellout" because he stood with the Jewish community in remembering the October 7 Hamas attack. Jewish leaders condemned him for his criticism of Israel and Palestinian sympathies expressed in the same breath as remembrance of the attack. But Mamdani understands the connection between the treatment by Israel of Palestinians and Palestinian treatment of Israel.

Keep ReadingShow less