Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

55 statewide and congressional primaries decided by minority of voters so far

Mehmet Oz (Dr. Oz)

Mehmet Oz won the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania with 31 percent of the vote.

Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

Griffiths is the national editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.

New analysis from the nonpartisan elections reform group FairVote found that, so far, the winners of 55 congressional and statewide primaries in 2022 have garnered less than 50 percent of the vote. Nineteen of these elections were decided by less than a third of voters.

To date, 32 states have held some or all of their primaries. This means that the number of races in which a majority of voters cast a ballot for someone other than the winner is likely to increase before the primary season is wrapped up.

“The current system is failing voters, most obviously in the 90 percent of districts that are so partisan that the election is decided in the primary. The winner is chosen by only a fraction of a fraction of the electorate,” said Rob Richie, president and CEO of FairVote.


Most congressional districts are safe for one party or the other due to factors like partisan gerrymandering, and sometimes just because of voting trends and party registration within a community. Regardless of the reason, partisan leanings are so strong in a district, however, nearly all elections are effectively decided in low-turnout primary elections. A candidate can secure their general election win with a third of the vote in elections that have less than 20 percent turnout.

Some might raise the argument for runoff elections, but such a system results in even fewer people deciding the nomination. Runoffs generally draw half the turnout while costing taxpayers millions for an election in which the least representative choice can advance to the general election.

FairVote advocates for ranked-choice voting, arguing RCV brings greater equity, fairness, competition and accountability to elections.

“Ranked-choice voting takes on this problem by ensuring a candidate wins a majority of votes against their top opponent without a separate runoff,” said Richie.

RCV gives voters the option to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority of first choice selections, the last place candidate is eliminated and their voters’ next selection is applied to the results.

The process continues until a candidate has a majority of the vote.

Ideally, voters would rank their preferred candidate as their first choice. They would then rank their second choice based on which candidate they would vote for if their top choice was not in the race, and their third choice would be whomever they would vote for if their top two choices were not in the race.

It is a way to essentially conduct a runoff when the most voters participate without the expense of another election. The voting method would ensure that the person who advances to the general election or wins an election doesn’t do so with anything less than a majority.

RCV is used in 55 cities and states with 14 million people. The number of jurisdictions that use RCV more than doubled in 2021 due in large part to the 20 Utah cities that chose to use it in local elections.

Two states use RCV at the statewide level, Maine and Alaska. Alaska will use RCV in statewide elections for the first time on Aug. 6.

Read More

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

Capitol building, Washington, DC

Unsplash/Getty Images

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

There may be no greater indication that voters are not being listened to in the escalating redistricting war between the Republican and Democratic Parties than a new poll from NBC News that shows 8-in-10 Americans want the parties to stop.

It’s what they call an "80-20 issue," and yet neither party is standing up for the 80% as they prioritize control of Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

The White House and money

AI generated image

Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

In the United States, where the free market has long been exalted as the supreme engine of prosperity, a peculiar irony is taking shape. On August 22, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that the federal government had acquired a stake of just under 10% in Intel, instantly making itself the company’s largest shareholder. The stake - roughly 433 million shares, valued at about $8.9 billion, purchased at $20.47 each - was carved out of the Biden-era CHIPS Act subsidies and repackaged as equity. Formally, it is a passive, non-voting stake, with no board seat or governance rights. Yet symbolism matters: Washington now sits, however discreetly, in Intel’s shareholder register. Soon afterward, reports emerged that Samsung, South Korea’s industrial giant, had also been considered for similar treatment. What once would have been denounced as creeping socialism in Washington is now unfolding under Donald Trump, a president who boasts of his devotion to private enterprise but increasingly embraces tactics that blur the line between capitalism and state control.

The word “nationalization,” for decades associated with postwar Britain, Latin American populists, or Arab strongmen, is suddenly back in circulation - but this time applied to the citadel of capitalism itself. Trump justifies the intervention as a matter of national security and economic patriotism. Subsidies, he argues, are wasteful. Tariffs, in his view, are a stronger tool for forcing corporations to relocate factories to U.S. soil. Yet the CHIPS Act, that bipartisan legacy of the Biden years, remains in force and politically untouchable, funneling billions of dollars into domestic semiconductor projects. Rather than scrap it, Trump has chosen to alter the terms: companies that benefit from taxpayer largesse must now cede equity to the state. Intel, heavily reliant on those funds, has become the test case for this new model of American industrial policy.

Keep ReadingShow less