Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Solution for one big city's blue monopoly? Open primaries, study says.

Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh

In Baltimore, winning the Democratic primary is tantamount to winning the election. Catherine Pugh won the 2016 primary with just 37 percent of the vote.

Paul Marotta/Getty Images

Griffiths is the editor of Independent Voter News.

Baltimore is a one-party town. It hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1967. Registered Democrats vastly outnumber any other party registration, having a tenfold advantage over the GOP. It's as blue as a city can get.

The consequence is that November elections are inconsequential. The winner of the closed Democratic mayoral primary, for instance, might as well be sworn in the next day, and he or she can win with a marginal share of the total registered voting population. Voters outside the Democratic Party have no voice in the process.

A new study says that, to strengthen political competition and improve city elections, Baltimore should implement nonpartisan reform. Specifically, George Washington University political scientist Christopher Warshaw says, a "'top-two primary' is the reform most likely to improve Baltimore's mayoral elections. This reform would increase turnout and electoral competition."


The Abell Foundation published Warshaw's study just in time for Maryland's primary last week — when the Democratic nod for mayor, which is tantamount to election, was won by City Council President Brandon Scott with just 29 percent of the vote against four credible opponents

Warshaw examines three problems he identified with Baltimore elections:

  • Primary elections can be won with a narrow plurality or very low threshold of the total vote. Another example: Catherine Pugh won the Democratic mayoral primary four years ago with just 37 percent.
  • Due to the overwhelming advantage the Democrats have in voter registration, the primary election is the most crucial stage of the elections process and the Democratic primary decides the winner of the election.
  • Only registered party members can participate in the primaries, meaning approximately 50,000 voters registered unaffiliated or outside the two major parties are denied a voice unless they affiliate with the dominant party (In other words, their right to meaningful participation is conditioned on affiliating with the Democratic Party.)

Warshaw ultimately concludes that a nonpartisan, top-two primary in which all voters and candidates, regardless of party, participate on a single primary ballot could have the most transformative effect on city elections.

Because Baltimore is a Democratic stronghold this could lead to same-party races in November. However, he says, the outcome of the race will be decided when the most voters participate and won't be decided by the party faithful.

"The shift to a top-two primary would ... lead to more competitive general elections and incentivize candidates to appeal to a broader electorate," the study concludes. "This, in turn, could improve democracy in Baltimore by leading to the election of officials that are more demographically and ideologically representative of Baltimore's electorate."

Researchers in California have determined that the nonpartisan, top-two primary has had this exact effect on the state's political landscape. California uses the top-two primary" for all state executive and legislative elections, along with non-presidential federal elections.

Warshaw further suggests that the city should analyze the impact ranked-choice voting has in New York and other major cities where it has been adopted and is used. If it works in the nation's biggest city, he writes, then Baltimore should consider adding it to the nonpartisan, top-two primary.

Warshaw recognizes, however, that there is a significant legal hurdle to adopting nonpartisan election reform. His research indicates that the city does not have the authority to change its own elections and would need state legislative approval. In other words, change can only happen if the people who control elections agree to cede that authority to voters.

Historically, this has been a tall hurdle to clear because parties don't like to give up this control.

This doesn't mean support for reforming primary elections doesn't exist in the Legislature. In his study, Warshaw cites a bill, proposed in Annapolis last year by Democratic Rep. Brooke Lierman of Baltimore City, that would have permitted the city to switch to ranked-choice voting or open primaries. Lierman eventually withdrew her own bill.

Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.

Read More

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less