%20(1).png)
Throughout the 2026 primary season, the national conversation has centered on the horse race: Which candidates won? Which party has momentum? Who will control Congress next year? What do these results tell us about the future of both parties and the country?
But that conversation misses the most important story underlying all of it.
The 2026 elections are already the least competitive of our lifetimes. Nearly 90% of U.S. House races and 75% of Senate races are not competitive in November. In those contests, the party primary — not the general election — effectively determined the winner.
The Unite America Institute (UAI)’s newly-released Primary Problem analysis found a mere 9.4% of voters participated in the dominant party primaries that determined those House contests, and 10.2% of voters participated in the dominant party primaries that determined the Senate contests. In other words, 9.4% of voters effectively elected nearly 90% of the House, and 10.2% of voters effectively elected 75% of the Senate races up for election this cycle.
So while many Americans will turn out to vote this November, the small, unrepresentative group of voters participating in low-turnout party primaries has already decided the overwhelming majority of elections.
To determine how many races are determined in primaries, UAI first looks at Cook Political Report’s nonpartisan race ratings, which measure competitiveness. Cook currently rates 398 of the 435 House races (92%) and 26 of 35 Senate races (74%) as safe for one party or the other.
The vast majority of those “safe” seats are uncompetitive in the general election and effectively decided in primaries, with a couple exceptions:
Accounting for these exceptions allows Unite America to distinguish between seats that are simply safe for one party, and those in which a party primary effectively determines who will represent the district.
Based on that methodology, UAI finds that 383 House races (88% of the chamber) and 26 Senate races (74% of the seats up for election this cycle) were effectively decided in party primaries rather than competitive general elections.
Next, Unite America looks at how many voters participated in the primaries that effectively determined those outcomes. Just 22,680,444 voters participated in the dominant party primaries that decided 88% of U.S. House seats. That’s 9.4% of eligible voters nationwide. On the Senate side, just 9,526,758 voters participated in the dominant-party primaries that decided 74% of the U.S. Senate seats that are up for election this cycle. That’s 10.2% of eligible voters in those states.
Of course, one factor in the small number of voters determining most elections is low turnout. Primary turnout has always been chronically low, and this year was no exception. According to American University professor Joshua Ferrer, while this year’s primary turnout is the highest in modern history, it still sits in the low 20% on average nationwide.
Additionally, primary voters tend to be older, whiter, wealthier, and more partisan than the broader public. As a result, the voters who exercise the greatest influence over Congress often look very different from the communities lawmakers are elected to serve.
For millions of Americans, participating in the election that decided the outcome was not even an option. Sixteen states held closed party primaries in 2026, barring approximately 16.5 million registered independent voters from participating, despite the fact that their tax dollars fund those primaries.
Simply because they choose not to affiliate with a party, they are denied a meaningful voice. It’s quite literally taxation without representation. No American should have to join a private political organization to exercise a meaningful vote in a public election.
The exclusion is especially difficult to justify as the number of independent voters grows. In Gallup’s latest party ID poll, 45% of respondents considered themselves independent, compared to 27% each identifying as Democrats or Republicans. And in 19 of the 31 states that register voters by party, independents outnumber one or both parties.
The competition crisis was even more severe in 150 congressional districts.
In those 150 races — which represent more than one-third of the U.S. House — candidates were effectively elected before a single ballot was cast. Those candidates ran unopposed in the dominant party primary for a safe seat, facing no meaningful competition in either the primary or the general election.
The problem is not that these 150 candidates are necessarily unqualified or undeserving. It is that the 85 million eligible voters they represent were denied a real choice and candidates were denied the democratic legitimacy that comes from earning support in a competitive election.
Congress has historically low public approval, yet more than one-third of its members can take office without facing meaningful competition. In any other part of American life, sustained dissatisfaction would invite challengers and create pressure to improve. In congressional elections, the system often prevents that accountability from taking hold.
Primary results inevitably invite sweeping conclusions about what voters want and where the country is headed. But there’s a problem: When only a small fraction of eligible voters participates in the election that matters, the results offer a limited window into the views of the broader electorate.
Take Melat Kiros, for example, a DSA-backed candidate who successfully primaried longtime Rep. Diana DeGette in Denver, Colorado. The media ran with the narrative that Kiros’ victory showed the growing support of Democratic Socialists nationwide, following similar DSA victories the week before in New York
Not so fast. The reality is that a mere 25% of eligible voters in that congressional district participated in the Democratic primary. Because Colorado House District 1 is a safe Democratic seat, the primary was the election that mattered in determining the outcome.
We saw a similar dynamic with Rep. Thomas Massie’s race in Kentucky. President Trump endorsed a primary challenger to Massie, Ed Gallrein, and the race came to represent a national referendum on the president’s electoral power. While Gallrein did end up defeating Massie, only 19% of eligible voters participated in that Republican primary that determined the outcome in a safe Republican district.
The point isn’t to diminish either candidate’s victory or the voters who supported them. It’s to be careful about what these results can tell us. When a small, self-selected share of voters determines the consequential election, the outcome may tell us a great deal about that primary electorate — but far less about the views of the district, the party, or the country as a whole.
Yet these races can generate national narratives and confer significant political influence. That disconnect is part of the Primary Problem: a small share of voters can have an extraordinarily large role in determining who governs — and in shaping what the rest of us think voters want.
If much of the 2026 primary season underscored the problem, a few states showed us what a path toward greater competition can look like.
States that use open, all-candidate primaries give every voter the right to participate, put every candidate on the same ballot, and advance more than one candidate to the general election. That creates the possibility of meaningful November competition even in places where one party dominates.
For example, California’s top-two primary produced both high turnout and increased general election competition. More than 36% of California voters participated in the state’s June primary, well above the 20% average nationwide. Additionally, the top-two primary produced nine same-party matchups in November, injecting competition into what otherwise would be meaningless races. If California had traditional party primaries, 49 of the state’s 52 House races (94%) would be uncompetitive in November. With the all-candidate primary, uncompetitive races drop to 40 (77%). That gives millions of voters the opportunity to cast a meaningful vote that they otherwise wouldn’t have.
Similarly, Alaska saw relatively high turnout and competition as a result of its top-four primary. More than 31% of Alaskans participated in the August all-candidate primary, 38% of general elections for the state legislature have more than three candidates, 28% feature a same-party matchup, and 64% feature something other than just a conventional Republican vs. Democratic matchup.
Both states showed this cycle how reforming primaries can give voters better choices and a more meaningful say in elections.
The crisis revealed by the 2026 primaries is larger than either political party and more enduring than the outcome of a single election.
The central question is not simply whether Democrats or Republicans will control Congress next year. It is whether the American people had a meaningful say in choosing the members who will serve there.
For nearly 90% of House seats and 75% of Senate seats, the answer is that most voters did not. The outcomes were decided in low-turnout party primaries. Millions of independent voters were excluded. And 150 candidates reached November without facing a single opponent in the only party contest that mattered.
When elected officials face little meaningful competition, they have less incentive to represent the majority of their constituents, find common ground, or solve difficult problems. Instead, they are rewarded for appealing to the narrow slice of voters and special interests that hold the most power in party primaries.
It does not have to be this way.
If every state replaced party primaries with open, all-candidate primaries every voter would have an equal ability to participate and general elections would become more competitive again. Doing so would not guarantee that any particular kind of candidate wins. It would guarantee something more fundamental: competition, choice, and accountability.
The 2026 primary season should be remembered as a warning. In a representative democracy, voters should choose their elected officials — not be asked to ratify choices that were already made for them.
Stay up-to-date on the latest news and resources from Unite America.
.png)
.png)