Skip to content
Sign up free
Open Primaries

9% of Voters Already Picked Your Congress. A New Poll Says Everyone Else Is Fed Up

9% of Voters Already Picked Your Congress. A New Poll Says Everyone Else Is Fed Up
Image: US House Speaker Mike Johnson taking questions about the midterms. Credit: Sipa USA/Alamy Live News on Alamy. Image license obtained and exclusively used by IVN Editor Shawn Griffiths.

A new poll shows 56% of voters want to replace closed party primaries with open elections where all candidates compete on one ballot. The survey reveals voters are frustrated that just 9% of Americans effectively decide most congressional races.

By Shawn Griffiths

3-minute read

The 2026 midterms are still weeks away, but for most Americans the outcome of their congressional race has already been decided, and they had little or no say in it.

Now, new polling finds that voters are not satisfied with the process that gave them their November choices.

IVN has written thousands of articles (literally) about the impact partisan primaries have on elections and the political process in the US.

This includes how in every election cycle 90% of US House races are effectively determined in party primaries by just 9% of voters.

This is due to a number of factors, including partisan gerrymandering and geographical self-sorting (Republicans like to live with Republicans; Democrats like to live with Democrats).

As a result, most congressional districts are safe for the Republican or Democratic Party. Whoever wins the dominant party’s nomination is all but guaranteed to win in November.

And odds are the winner is chosen by only a handful of the voting age population.

This week, a survey conducted by Emerson College Polling for RealClear Opinion Research and sponsored by the Unite America Institute shows voters are not only aware of this problem but want the system changed.

According to the results, 56% of respondents support replacing traditional party primaries with open, all-candidate primaries. Only 29% oppose the idea.

Open, all-candidate primaries are elections in which all voters and candidates participate on a single ballot, regardless of party preference. Any voter can vote for any candidate in any race.

This type of primary model is used in 3 states: California (Top Two), Washington (Top Two), and Alaska (Top Four).

“Voters are experiencing the ‘Primary Problem’ in real time,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano.

“Most congressional races were effectively decided before November by a small and unrepresentative share of voters. Candidates were rewarded for appealing to partisan bases, millions of voters lacked meaningful choices and Congress remains unable to address the problems affecting people’s lives.”

But there’s more. The survey further highlights that voters increasingly understand the incentives that partisan primaries create.

  • Only 18% said the primary process encourages candidates to appeal to a broad majority.
  • 59% believed party primaries contribute to political division
  • 62% said wealthy donors, special interests, and Super PACs have too much influence  

Here is the core of the issue: When a small, highly engaged and motivated partisan base decides who holds office, candidates have no incentive to court the broader electorate.

When candidates have no incentive to court the broader electorate, most voters are denied meaningful choice and representation.

And when participation in the most consequential elections is limited to a small segment of the voting age population, every dollar spent by monied interests has a greater impact.

Most Voters Sat It Out — Or Were Shut Out

Only 25% of the survey’s respondents reported voting in a primary election this year. Among independents, the number dropped to 17%.

But that low turnout should not be confused with apathy.

More than a quarter of independent voters who said they didn’t vote also said they were ineligible to participate under their state's primary rules.

In other words, a significant share of the fastest-growing segment of the electorate was locked out of the elections that decided most of Congress.

Voters across the spectrum think that's wrong.

While a majority said they support open, all candidate primaries, under a partisan primary process, more than 70% said all voters—including independents—should be able to participate.

Just 29% said participation should be limited to registered party members.

Congress Isn't Working, and Voters Know It

If there is one clear takeaway from the survey, it is that the system is not working for most voters—party members and independents alike.

Seventy-four percent of respondents said Congress is not effectively addressing the country's biggest problems, including the cost of living, health care, immigration, and AI.

This includes 82% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 65% of Republicans.

Few issues in American politics generate that kind of cross-partisan consensus. But is it really a surprise when 90% of voters had zero say in who represents them?

There is now a greater understanding among the general public that if they want better politics, then the US needs fairer, more inclusive elections.

Closed and partisan primaries are only making things worse because they create incentives that make things worse.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

9% of Voters Already Picked Your Congress. A New Poll Says Everyone Else Is Fed Up

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us