Our flawed primary elections routinely produce unrepresentative outcomes – and
this month's contests were no exception. Donate Today!
Dear John,
Our flawed primary elections routinely produce unrepresentative outcomes – and
this month's contests were no exception.
This “primary problem” also has implications for the upcoming November
elections.New researchshows that when nominees win their primaries with majority
support, they’re more likely to win the general election. Ranked choice voting
(RCV) would ensure nominees enter the general election stronger, with support
from a majority of their party.
Read on to learn about:
* our new research, and
* how RCV would improve primaries in Texas, NorthCarolina, Indiana, Maryland,
and beyond!
MAJORITY NOMINEES ARE STRONGER
We’ve seen many examples over the years of candidates nominated with a minority
of votes who then fare poorly in general elections. Now we know just how big the
impact is:
In competitive general elections, candidates who win their primary with a
minority of votes are 11.3 percentage points less likely to win than candidates
who win their primary with a majority.
Given how many racesparties have lostin recent years with weak nominees, that
effect can make a big difference in who controls Congress and state
legislatures. You can find the full research paper by Northwestern University
Political Science Professor Laurel Harbridge-Yong and myselfhere. We also
summarize the findings in our new research brief video:
Thankfully, parties can strengthen their candidates by using ranked choice
voting in primaries. RCV allows different wings of the party to come together
behind a nominee, and helps that nominee enter the general election with support
from a majority of their party’s voters. More voters feel energized and
bought-in to their party’s candidate.
PRIMARY RUNOFFS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND TEXAS
One way to deliver majority nominees could be delayed runoffs, but as elections
in Texas and North Carolina this month demonstrate, those create their own
problems – because so few people vote in them.
On Tuesday, Texas held over two dozen primary runoffs for state and federal
offices. These runoffs occurred a full twelve weeks after the initial primary on
March 5. Turnout dropped dramatically in every single race, by 60 percent across
the board, and as high as 91 percent in one congressional race. Most nominees
won fewer votes in the runoff than they did in the initial primary. These races
were particularly divisive for Texas Republicans, as runoffs prolonged spending
and infighting between wings of the party.
We saw similar problems earlier this month in North Carolina, where a meager 14%
of first-round voters in the lieutenant governor primary participated in the
runoff! In other words, about 9 in 10 voters simply didn’t have their voices
heard in the contest that decided this nominee for an important statewide
office.
Read my full analysis of the Texas runoffshere,and analysis of the North
Carolina runoffs by FairVote's Yates Wilburnhere.
Ranked choice voting is a cheaper, faster, and better way to vote. It
essentially conducts an “instant runoff” on primary day, and helps parties find
consensus. States don’t need to duplicate election costs, and voters don’t need
to take out time to vote again for the same race. Primaries would be decided on
a single election day when turnout is naturally the highest.
“FEWEST VOTES WINS” IN MARYLAND AND INDIANA
Unlike their Southern counterparts, Maryland and Indiana don’t use runoffs at
all. That means primaries are frequently decided by just a small sliver of the
electorate – often meaning weaker nominees, as our research shows.
In Indiana, Mike Braun won the Republican gubernatorial primary with just 39.6%
of the vote. In a crowded field of seven candidates, over 60% of voters cast a
ballot for one of Braun’s opponents!
Considering the Republican candidate’s all-but-assured victory in November, this
primary likely determined Indiana's next governor – a fraction of a fraction of
the electorate made the choice for the Hoosier State. Compare that to ranked
choice voting, which would ensure that Indiana's next governor at least had
support from a majority of their party.
Read my colleague Bryan Huang's full analysis of the Indiana primarieshere.
Maryland likewise saw plurality winners in important races. Notably, in the
state’s competitive 6th District race, both parties chose nominees with a
minority of votes. As our research suggests, that’s likely to weaken both
nominees ahead of November.
RCV would have helped Democrats and Republicans advance strong nominees,
increased the quality of campaigns, and given general election voters better
choices. By continuing to use single-choice primaries, both parties are leaving
cards on the table.
Read my full analysis of the Maryland primarieshere.
The "primary problem" is a national one, going well beyond just these four
states. Check out FairVote’s website for analysis of other states’ 2024
primaries, including contests inAlabama,California,Iowa, andNew Hampshire.
Ranked choice voting can make primaries work for parties and voters alike. To be
part of the solution, visitFairVote Actionfor opportunities to support RCV
across the country.
Onwards!
Rachel Hutchinson,
Senior Policy Analyst
PS: Many members of Congress are just as frustrated with the state of our
government as voters are. See why so many retiring members areendorsing RCVas a
way to help Congress function!
Donate Today Copyright © 2024 FairVote, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
8484 Georgia Ave, Suite 240, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can unsubscribe from this list.
