#25: Abolish Primary Elections

Richard Pildes, professor of constitutional law at the NYU School of Law, says primary elections exacerbate political polarization. He thinks we should replace them with instant-runoff voting.

“Primary elections have turned out to be one of the causes that contribute to the extreme polarization of politics today,” says Richard Pildes, professor of constitutional law at the New York University School of Law. “The people who show up for primary elections tend to be much more extreme, much more the activist wings of the political parties."


Moreover, voter turnout in primaries is low—dipping in many states below a quarter of registered voters, which itself is a fraction of the total eligible voters.  This adds up, says Pildes, to a system where hard-line partisan voters wield disproportionate sway during primaries.  In the general election “you often have a choice between an extreme conservative and an extreme liberal and the center gets kind of squeezed out through the two-stage process of voting that we now have,” he says.

That's why Pildes believes we should end primary elections and replace them with a system of instant-runoff voting where multiple candidates from different parties run in the same race against one another. Such systems have already been implemented in cities like Minneapolis and San Francisco.

In one version of this system, voters show up once for a general election and rank their candidates in order of preference.  If none receives a majority, a portion of candidates with the least votes is removed. The ballots are then recounted, now with the second choice counted for those whose first choice was removed. This is repeated until a candidate gets a majority.

Instant runoff voting, says Pildes, “collapses the primary election and the general election into a single event.  So everybody only has to show up only once.”  A broadened electorate with such a system, he says, would bolster a political center, encourage moderates and centrists to run for office and encourage such politicians to pursue policy across partisan differences once elected. Moreover, political candidates are less beholden to the more extreme factions of their parties, and could more effectively court moderates from both parties.

The Takeaway

Primary elections are currently weighted toward candidates from the extreme wings of their respective parties, often resulting in general elections where moderate voices are shut out and voters are compelled to choose between extreme viewpoints. Primaries should be replaced with an instant runoff voting system, based on listing candidates by preference, or a single, open primary to establish a two-candidate general election. 

Why We Should Reject This

“I don’t think that primary elections are the major reason for polarization,” says Alan Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University.  “Democratic and Republican primary voters are not very different in their views from Democratic and Republican general election voters.”

Abramowitz says that the more engaged in politics voters are, "the more interested they are, the more knowledgeable they are, the more active they are, the more polarized they are.” He says that ending primary elections will not change that.

“The reality is primaries are not going to be abolished,” he said. “The whole thrust of the nomination process, the changes that have been going on over time, has been to increase the number primaries to increase the role of the public to allow rank-and-file party members greater involvement.  To try and cut them out of the process I think would be very unpopular.”

More Resources

—Richard Pildes, "Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America."

—Alan Abramowitz, "Don’t Blame Primary Voters for Polarization.

Public Policy Institute of California report on "top-two-vote-getter" TTVG Open Primaries, as were adopted by California's Prop 14 in June.

Billionaire warlords: Why the future is medieval

The world's next superpower might just resurrect the Middle Ages.

Videos
  • Russia? China? No. The rising world superpower is the billionaire class. Our problem, says Sean McFate, is that we're still thinking in nation states.
  • Nation states have only existed for the last 300-400 years. Before that, wealthy groups – tribes, empires, aristocracies, etc – employed mercenaries to wage private wars.
  • As wealth inequality reaches combustion point, we could land back in the status quo ante of the Middle Ages. Who will our overlords be? Any or all of the 26 ultra-rich billionaires who own as much as the world's 3.8 billion poorest. What about Fortune 500, which is more powerful than most of the states in the world? Random billionaires, multinational corporations, and the extractive industry may buy armies and wage war on their own terms.
Keep reading Show less

Golden blood: the rarest blood in the world

We explore the history of blood types and how they are classified to find out what makes the Rh-null type important to science and dangerous for those who live with it.

Abid Katib/Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • Fewer than 50 people worldwide have 'golden blood' — or Rh-null.
  • Blood is considered Rh-null if it lacks all of the 61 possible antigens in the Rh system.
  • It's also very dangerous to live with this blood type, as so few people have it.
Keep reading Show less

5 of the worst keto diet side effects

The keto diet can help with weight loss, but at what cost?

Pixabay
Surprising Science
  • In addition to weight loss, there are a few well-known side effects of the keto diet, some of which can be unpleasant.
  • Some side effects of the keto diet are bound to occur, though others only happen when the diet is implemented poorly.
  • The keto diet doesn't have to lead to a host of negative side effects, but anyone considering undertaking the diet over the long term should be especially careful.
Keep reading Show less