The Competition Solution to the Primary Problem

Amid rising polarization and widespread dissatisfaction with our political system, many have zeroed in on the “primary problem,” or the idea that America’s dysfunction stems, in part, from the fact that too many elections are decided in low-turnout primaries dominated by unrepresentative partisan diehards. At the same time, nearly a quarter of Americans feel politically homeless, and just 37 percent say either major party represents them well. Frustration with the available candidate choices is rising.

This is all true. However, we should be careful not to think about the primary problem as simply a problem with primaries themselves. Indeed, democracy is composed of two main ingredients: participation and competition. The most significant issue maligning our politics is a lack of competition. While some changes to primaries can increase access—a laudable goal and a step in the right direction—more meaningful solutions to the primary problem will only come from comprehensive reforms that restore competition to our general elections.

The truth is that political parties already operate under a near-ideal incentive structure for choosing their candidates. The parties have one purpose: to win political power for their members. If a party’s nomination process produced unelectable candidates, the party would have a strong incentive to change it—not out of principle, but because winning is the point. Throughout American history, parties have altered their candidate selection processes many times. The parties’ motivations don’t depend on civic virtue or democratic values, just raw self-interest. In that sense, primaries reflect the logic of the founders, channeling ambition and self-interest toward outcomes that serve the public good.

We should also acknowledge that millions of eligible voters with the ability to participate in their local primaries simply don’t. While this doesn’t mean access to primaries shouldn’t be improved, it does mean such improvements will have a limited impact. Put differently, when it comes to improving our representation, accessible primaries are necessary but not sufficient. Our general elections must become more competitive.

Currently, in much of the country, one party dominates so thoroughly that the primary is the only meaningful contest. That leaves vast swaths of voters with no real choice on Election Day—and little reason to believe their voice matters. This isn’t just about gerrymandering, either. Geographic sorting—people moving to like-minded communities—means that even with perfectly drawn districts, most elections would still lean heavily toward one party. In such a landscape, the key is not necessarily to redraw lines but to rethink the election structure itself. Voter options on Election Day should be as politically diverse as the constituencies themselves, within and without parties.

Two leading reforms can help restore meaningful choice to voters and shift the focus of our politics back to the general election.

First, proportional representation (PR) for the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures may help shift election and policy outcomes to more accurately reflect voter preferences. Under a PR system, seats are allocated based on the percentage of the vote each party receives—meaning partisan representation will relate directly to the support each party manages to turn out. PR also ensures that every vote counts, even when one party has a sizable majority. General elections become more competitive, and legislatures more accurately reflect the full range of public views.

The second option is to adopt all-candidate primaries. In such a system, every candidate—regardless of party—competes in a single primary. The top finishers then advance to the general election. While this may appear as a “primary reform,” the key to this type of electoral structure is that it shifts the deciding race to the general election. Even in districts where one party dominates, candidates from the same party can compete in November. This structure also encourages coalition-building and reduces the influence of hyper-engaged factions. An all-candidate primary offers varying solutions within itself. In practice, two to five winners can advance to the general election, where an instant or standard runoff can determine a majority winner in the case of more than two candidates. Each approach offers its own tradeoffs to consider.

In this series, we’ll explore these solutions in depth—how they work, where they’ve been tried, and the tradeoffs they entail—in search of a competition-bolstering solution to the primary problem.