In New York, 7% of Voters Just Decided for the Other 93%

The early turnout numbers for the New York primary this year are brutal.

While the media would prefer to characterize the results on June 23 as a harbinger of things to come in the midterm general elections, it was instead a reminder that in much of the country, not only are elections decided well ahead of November, but they are decided by a small handful of voters.

In New York, specifically, this means 4% or less of the total registered electorate (a number that shrinks even further when looking at all eligible voters) decide the winner under a closed primary system that locks out 3.7 million independent voters.

At a statewide level, the only office that even had a primary was for Comptroller and only on the Democratic side. In that race, New York’s Board of Elections reports approximately 939,000 votes were cast out of more than 6 million enrolled Democrats.

That is 15.6% of eligible Democratic voters—and 7.5% of all registered voters in a state where the Democrat is all but guaranteed to win because registered party members make up half of the voting population (48%). 

With 90% of precincts reporting, the projected winner for Comptroller, incumbent Thomas DiNapoli, has 576,131 votes. That’s only 4.6% of the 12.5 million registered voters in New York.

The state's primary system discourages competition and voter participation so much that the governor and attorney general primaries went uncontested. Gov. Kathy Hochul will easily sail to re-election without needing to defend her party nomination.

But even when there are primary contests to watch, whether at the state level or in congressional and state legislative districts, the races are often so safe for one party or the other that the majority party’s primary is all that matters.

Contrast that with California, which uses a nonpartisan, open, voter-nominated system. Every voter gets the same ballot, regardless of their party affiliation or lack thereof, no one is locked out, and everyone gets to choose from any candidate they want.

They can choose a Democrat in one race, a Republican in another, and a No Party Preference candidate in a third if they want. The choice is theirs and all voters have the opportunity to weigh in on who makes it to November.

As a result, voters can see a stark difference in outcomes and incentives. 

For one, the primary turnout better reflects the overall electorate in California. According to the PDI ballot tracker, about 21% of voters who participated in the 2026 primaries were registered outside the two major parties. 

This is close to the share of No Party Preference voters in the state at-large. Republicans made up 29% of the turnout and Democrats made up half of voters, only slightly higher than their overall share of the registered electorate.

When independent voters were part of a concentrated voter outreach program, their turnout increased which contributed to 4 out of every 10 voters in the state participating – a figure that comes from the California secretary of state.

Without question, independent voters made a difference in which candidates advanced. What the outcome would have looked like without this voting group is a matter for speculation, but New York may offer some insight. 

Independent voters don’t get a say in taxpayer-funded primary elections in New York. Only registered party members can participate in these low-turnout contests where candidates of each party appear on separate ballots. 

The incentive for a candidate to win is different. The person who can appeal to a small but motivated ideological group has the greatest advance. Case-in-point, look how well the Democratic Socialists of America did.

DSA candidates had their biggest night in New York on June 23, advancing 2 candidates in US House races in NY-7 and NY-13, a state Senate candidate, and 5 state Assembly candidates in races that are considered safe for the Democratic nominee. 

In NY-13, Darializa Avila Chevalier beat five-term incumbent Adriano Espaillat in the Democratic primary with about 32,790 votes. The district has more than 338,000 registered Democrats, meaning her winning vote total represents less than 10% of her party.

That is just looking at enrolled Democrats, who are allowed to participate under the state’s closed primary rules. Yet, only 1-in-10 did, and this turnout percentage drops even more when looking at the electorate at large.

To understand how safe a district NY-13 is for the Democratic nominee, Harris took it with 79% of the vote in 2024. US Sen. Kristen Gillibrand got 83% that same year while Espaillat won re-election with a similar 83.5%.

And Espaillat is also DSA-aligned. 

All the winning candidate needs are 1 out of every 10 Democrats win—a low bar that doesn’t take much to clear, much in the same way the Tea Party and MAGA were able to mobilize a fraction of GOP voters to change the makeup of the Republican Party in red states over the last decade.

The DSA looks like it took a page out of this playbook and has found success under partisan primary systems, particularly closed models that lock independent voters out enitrely.

A Tale of Two Systems

California and New York may be similar in partisan make up. Democrats make up nearly half the electorate in both states. But the 2026 election cycle was a tale of two systems.

One open. One closed.

One voter-nominated. The other partisan-nominated.

One that produced one of the highest primary turnouts in the country. The other that produced one of the lowest.

One that incentivized broader voter outreach. The other that was decided by a small fraction of the electorate.

More Choice California Launches to Defend Nonpartisan Primary as Democratic and Republican Operatives Join Forces to Repeal It

A broad cross-partisan coalition of California reformers launched More Choice California on Monday to lead the opposition against a proposed repeal of the state’s nonpartisan Top Two primary system.

Independent Voter NewsShawn Griffiths

Party operatives and insiders on both sides of the aisle in California have mobilized to “Undo the Top Two.” This would return California to a system that looks similar to New York, locking out 6.9 million independent voters and removing the ability to choose any candidate.

If voters want to know what this would mean for election results—New York may offer them a glimpse into what would happen under party-controlled elections.