Primary elections aren't working. New research points to a better way forward.

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 research shows 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, North Carolina, 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 races parties have lost in 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 myself here. 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 runoffs here, and analysis of the North Carolina runoffs by FairVote's Yates Wilburn here.

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 primaries here.

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 primaries here.

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 in Alabama, California, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

Ranked choice voting can make primaries work for parties and voters alike. To be part of the solution, visit FairVote Action for 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 are endorsing RCV as a way to help Congress function!

Donate Today