Intro: You, Your Ballot, and Who Really Calls the Shots

Imagine showing up to vote in November, proud that you are doing your civic duty, only to learn that the real contest happened six months ago without you. The winner was decided in a low-turnout primary while you were busy living your life. This is not a conspiracy. It is how the system was built.

Closed primaries, gerrymandered lines, and first-past-the-post voting are all systemic problems that determine whether your individual ballot matters or if it is just meaningless partisan-driven paperwork depending on your zip code.

So ask yourself: in our democracy, who is supposed to be calling the shots here? 

Are political parties the building blocks of democracy? Or are voters the building blocks of democracy? 

This series takes you inside the maze of election rules that shape your actual influence as a voter. 

1) Primary Elections: “When The First Round Is Really The Only Round”

Where did primaries come from? Partisan primaries emerged during the Progressive Era as a reform to remove candidate nominations from “smoke-filled rooms” and make them public elections. Over the past 100 years, most states have maintained primaries to select each major political party’s nominees, often with rules that limit who can vote. Because powerful incumbent politicians from both parties have drawn legislative districts in advance to be “safe” for one party or the other, the primary is almost always the decisive election. 

In other words, the first round is often the only round that really matters.  Recent data shows just how instrumental that first round of voting has become in determining the eventual winner. In 2024, approximately 87 percent of U.S. House seats were effectively decided in primaries by only 7 percent of eligible American voters, and in 2022, it was 83 percent decided by only 8 percent (Unite America, 2024; Unite America, 2022).

Two legal cases set the general legal framework for the rights of voters and political parties.

How Do Primary Elections Work? An Overview and Legal Analysis

 • In California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), the Supreme Court struck down California’s “blanket” primary because it forced parties to let nonmembers help choose party nominees, which the Court said violated party association rights (Jones, 530 U.S. 567). This decision invalidated California’s old “open blanket primary” system. 

As a result of this decision, the California legislature changed the state’s election back to a closed primary system.

 • In Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (2008), the Court upheld Washington’s nonpartisan “Top Two” primary because the purpose of the primary is not to pick party nominees at all. All candidates appear on one ballot, and the top two advance to November regardless of party (Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. 442). The purpose of a nonpartisan primary, therefore, is for the public to nominate two candidates to advance to the general election. Legally, this means that the political parties do not have a right to exclude voters from the public nomination process.

Not coincidentally, California voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2010 to convert its closed system into a nonpartisan election process, thereby restoring the right to participate for all voters.

LISTEN TO THE INDEPENDENT VOTER PODCAST:

So, You Have to Join a Party to Vote? 

In many states, independents are banned from voting in the decisive party primary unless they join a party or navigate special procedures. 

Reform researchers estimate that more than 23.5 million independent voters were locked out of the 2024 primary elections in 22 states due to closed or partially closed systems. These voters — nearly 1-in-4 Americans — had no say in the candidate selection process, even though they are a large enough bloc to swing presidential election outcomes. 

Closed primaries not only silence this massive number of independent voters, but they also exacerbate political polarization by allowing only party loyalists to shape who is on the ballot. As a result, extreme candidates are more likely to win, while candidates with broader appeal are pushed aside. (Unite America, The Primary Problem).

Some states have made the primary a more open public contest through citizen-led ballot measures.

• California uses an all-voter Top Two primary for state and congressional races (Prop 14 overview).

 • Washington uses an all-voter Top Two primary for most offices (WA Secretary of State Top Two FAQs).

 • Alaska uses an all-voter Top Four primary with instant runoffs in the general election. Voters rejected a 2024 repeal, so the groundbreaking system remains in place (Ballotpedia on the repeal measure, Alaska Public Media coverage).

Primary reform activists at Open Primaries, in cities and states across the country, continue to fight for the right of every voter to vote in every public election and to advocate for open, nonpartisan primary election systems.

There have been some recent victories for opening up the system to allow independent voters to participate.

In a historic bipartisan vote, the 2021 Maine legislature passed a semi-open primary bill ( LD 231) allowing independent voters. These voters make up 32% of all Maine voters. LD 231 granted those voters the right to pick a party ballot and vote in primary elections for the first time. Republicans joined with a majority of Democrats to pass the bill 27-7 in the Senate and 92-52 in the House.  The legislation was championed by Matthew Pouliot (R) and former State Senator Chloe Maxmin (D). Kaitlin LaCasse of Open Primaries Maine started organizing the effort in 2019. The 2026 Maine first semi-open primary election in Maine is scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, 2026. 

In 2024, activists at New Mexico Open Elections in New Mexico and Make All Votes Count DC in Washington, DC, were also successful in passing laws that end party primaries in favor of nonpartisan systems that grant access to all voters and candidates, regardless of party.

The open constitutional question that matters to you. Courts have mostly answered whether a voter can participate in a particular party’s “private” primary. Courts have generally answered this question by telling voters to “simply join a party” if they want to vote in a primary, citing a line of cases including Nader v. Schaffer.

A growing set of lawsuits poses a fundamentally different question: whether a voter can vote in the State’s primary election at all. 

Does the right to vote at an integral stage of a publicly funded election derive from citizenship, or from membership in a political party?

In August of this year, a retired attorney in Florida, Michael Polelle, used the extra time during retirement to take the question all the way to the Supreme Court.

Polelle’s case follows a long line of cases that began in New Jersey, moved to California, and, most recently, have been filed in Pennsylvania and Maryland, all testing the legal paths to protect voter access to taxpayer-funded and administered primary elections.

2) Gerrymandering: “When Politicians Pick Voters”

How gerrymandering really works and why it affects you. Partisan map-drawers use voter registration data to “pack” like-minded voters into a few legislative districts or “crack” like-minded voters across many districts. The result is more “safe” seats for both major political parties, far fewer competitive general elections, and far more power flowing to the dominant party’s primary voting electorate. 

The US Supreme Court doesn’t want to be the gerrymandering police. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court held that federal courts will not police partisan gerrymanders, leaving most guardrails to states and voters (Rucho opinion).

Independent commissions as a voter-first reform to end gerrymandering. Successful nonpartisan ballot initiatives in several states have shifted responsibility for map-drawing to independent citizen commissions with public criteria and transparency rules.

• California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission has been studied for effects on partisan fairness and competitiveness (PPIC report).
• Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission has published lessons learned and has been independently evaluated after court-ordered remedial mapping (CLOSUP report).

Reformers can make a difference at the ballot box if they galvanize the people.

In 2018, Katie Fahey led the successful grassroots movement to end partisan gerrymandering in Michigan. Believe it or not, she started her campaign by posting on Facebook. She was so successful and inspiring that the independent filmmakers at Magnolia Pictures made a movie about her for Netflix.

History and bipartisan blame. Gerrymandering is as old as the republic, and both parties use it when they can. As long as the power to determine their political fate is available to them, they will take it. The 2026 cycle is showing renewed hardball, court fights, and multiple attempts at mid-decade redraws that will shape the future of Congress and the lame duck Trump presidency. 

A Utah judge recently ordered new maps, citing violations of voter-approved redistricting reforms (AP on Utah ruling). 

IVN’s coverage highlights the aggressive partisan tactics being used by opposite parties in Texas and California to redraw maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. 

Why do fewer competitive seats lower turnout even more? 

When politicians draw maps to manufacture “safe” seats, the election that matters moves to low-turnout primaries. Candidates learn to win by appealing to their narrow base of voters on the far right or far left, rather than by building broad coalitions with people who agree. High incumbent win rates reflect the lack of competition. In 2024, congressional incumbents won re-election at very high rates (Ballotpedia: 2024 incumbent win rates).

3) First-Past-the-Post Voting: “When 35% Beats 65%”

Most U.S. elections are decided by First Past the Post voting. Also called plurality elections, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they fall short of majority support. Political scientists call the natural tilt toward two dominant parties Duverger’s Law. In practice, it limits real voter choice and rewards base-only strategies in races with more than two candidates.

Cities and states are experimenting with groundbreaking reforms.

• Top Two and Top Four systems: These formats expand participation in the first round and typically set up clearer head-to-head contests in the general. Washington’s Top Two system is explained by the Secretary of State, while Alaska’s Top Four with ranked-choice general elections survived a repeal effort in 2024 (WA Top Two FAQs, Alaska repeal measure, Alaska Public Media coverage).

• Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV): Maine requires candidates to win majority support through RCV before taking office (majority methods explainer). New York City primary voters have used RCV since 2019, and surveys show 96% understood their ballots (NYC exit survey). Charlottesville’s first RCV election this year was praised for delivering diverse representation (Charlottesville coverage).
• The Next Battleground: Michigan: Voters and lawmakers are clashing over whether ranked-choice voting will expand statewide (Michigan coverage).
• Meanwhile, polling shows growing dissatisfaction with limited choices in traditional elections. In San Diego and Chula Vista, for example, a substantial majority of voters say they want more options on their ballots.

Quick take: Ballot collection (“ballot harvesting”) and trust

What it is. Some states allow a voter to designate another person to return a completed mail ballot. Statutes vary widely. The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a 50-state table of third-party ballot return policies and safeguards such as chain-of-custody and signature verification. Ballotpedia summarizes state-by-state rules and debates (NCSL ballot collection table, Ballotpedia overview).

Why do people worry? Where third-party collection is broadly permitted and safeguards are weak, critics warn about pressure, mishandling, or stuffing drop boxes. Where it is restricted or banned, prosecutors have charged illegal schemes when they occur. The practical takeaway is simple and nonpartisan. Secure mail voting depends on clear rules, verification, and enforcement (NCSL overview).

4) Solutions: “Fix The Rules, Fix The Incentives”

Different voters value different outcomes. If you think democratic power primarily flows through parties, you may prefer strong party gatekeeping. If you believe power flows from individual citizens, you may prefer equal access to the decisive round and broader competition for your vote. The options below are not mutually exclusive. 

In fact, there’s even a National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers that includes dozens of organizations offering solutions for a more nonpartisan system of government.

1. All-voter, nonpartisan primaries.
   Make the first round a public contest that treats every voter and candidate the same. Top Two and Top Four are two proven models. Courts have upheld nonpartisan structures that do not force parties to let nonmembers choose party nominees (Washington State Grange).
    
2. Require majority support to win.
   Use a November instant runoff or a one-election majority method, such as ranked-choice, to avoid 30 to 40 percent winners in fields with more than two candidates. The goal is a winner who wins by building a broader coalition (majority methods explainer).
    
3. Independent redistricting commissions with clear criteria.
   Set public rules that respect communities of interest, limit splits, and prohibit partisan favoritism. Publish drafts and make data public so voters can verify fairness. See research and evaluations from California and Michigan (PPIC report, CLOSUP report).
    
4. Strengthen voter access to the decisive round.
   Whatever primary structure a state uses, no eligible voter should be locked out of the round that effectively determines the winner. Recent lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and prior litigation in California and New Jersey, all ask the courts to protect the nonpartisan right to vote at all stages of the public election process, including the primary.
    
5. Mail-in voting with guardrails.
   Support convenient ballot return options with verified chain-of-custody, signature checks, and sensible limits on third-party collection tailored to local needs, plus regular audits and transparent reporting (NCSL ballot collection table).
    
6. Consider changes that give voters more choices.
   There are numerous alternative election systems that communities nationwide can consider to give voters more choices at the ballot box, like Ranked Choice Voting. A similar system, Consensus Choice Voting, also allows voters to rank more than one candidate, but determines through head-to-head match-ups. STAR voting and approval voting are just two other methods that have recently gained steam.
    
7. More Representatives? A growing number of reformers are suggesting multi-winner districts with proportional representation as a way to reduce the map-maker’s power to preselect outcomes. Multi-member districts can give cohesive voter groups a better chance to elect someone who better represents them, even without perfect geographic concentration. 

For a more detailed understanding of how representatives are incentivized to represent more or less, voters, we recommend Gehl and Porter’s Why Competition in the Politics Industry is Failing America, because it focuses on how different election systems incentivize the quality of representation we get. 

Some numbers to remember

 • 87 percent and 7 percent (2024), and 83 percent and 8 percent (2022). That is the share of House seats decided by a small percentage of voters (Unite America 2024, Unite America 2022).

What This Means For One Voter: You 

If the decisive contest happens in a primary you cannot access, or in a district drawn to mute your community’s voice, your November vote may have less leverage than you think. If your district is competitive with more than two candidates, and winners must reach a majority, your ballot is more valuable, and candidates must build broader coalitions to earn it.

Gehl argues in her TED Talk that U.S. politics is not “broken” but deliberately structured to serve two dominant parties and their allies, leaving voters with limited choices and little accountability. She applies a business lens to show how the system protects itself from competition, then proposes “Final Five Voting”: open primaries that advance the top five candidates to a general election decided by ranked-choice voting. 

By changing incentives, she says, voters can restore real competition, broaden representation, and require majority support.