How Closed Primaries Give Us Unrepresentative Candidates — and How to Fix It

In 2022, Pennsylvania Republicans nominated Mehmet Oz for the U.S. Senate. A celebrity doctor with then Former President Donald Trump’s backing, Oz won a closed GOP primary where 61% of GOP voters said Trump’s endorsement was important to their choice. But outside that partisan base, his appeal eroded. One poll showed just 36% of Pennsylvanians viewed him favorably, and only 40% felt he understood their concerns. In what was widely seen as a winnable seat for Republicans, Oz went on to lose the general election to Democrat John Fetterman by five percentage points.

That same year in Oregon’s 5th congressional district, Democratic incumbent Kurt Schrader was ousted in a closed primary after opposing his party on prescription drug pricing. His challenger, Jamie McLeod-Skinner, won over the progressive base. But the district had voted for Joe Biden by nine points in 2020, and general-election voters leaned more centrist. Republicans flipped the seat in November — a loss many Democrats blamed on nominating a candidate who could not build a broad coalition.

Both examples show the same pattern: Closed primaries—where only registered party members can vote—make it more likely that candidates who cater to narrow partisan bases will struggle to win broader public support in November.

What Makes a Candidate “Unrepresentative”

Unite America defines an “unrepresentative” candidate as one whose appeal rests mainly on a narrow partisan base, rather than the interests of the full electorate they represent.

Closed primaries make unrepresentative outcomes more likely by limiting participation and amplifying the influence of ideological PACs. Because they restrict voting to registered party members, independents are shut out and the electorate shrinks to its most partisan core. 16 states currently hold closed primaries.

Primary turnout is also often abysmally low; in 2024, just 7% of eligible voters nationwide effectively decided 87% of House races. That small slice of voters tends to be more ideological than the general public, rewarding candidates who pass party purity tests and punishing those who are willing to make bipartisan compromises.

The Consequences

Political parties are beginning to see the downside to nominating unrepresentative candidates. . In Georgia, Republican Herschel Walker won his 2022 Senate primary with strong support from GOP base voters who backed his hardline stance on abortion. But in the general election, polls showed that nearly 60% of Georgians wanted abortion legal in most or all cases. Walker lost by three points — a defeat in a race Republicans had expected to win.

In Arizona, Kari Lake won her party’s 2022 gubernatorial primary by leaning heavily into election denial, a position shared by roughly three-quarters of GOP primary voters. But general-election polling found that 60% of Arizonans rejected claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Lake lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs in a state where Republicans had previously dominated statewide contests.

Democrats have paid the price, too. Schrader’s defeat in Oregon is one example; another came in Illinois, where Rep. Dan Lipinski — one of the last anti-abortion Democrats in Congress — was defeated in a primary by a progressive challenger in 2020. While Democrats held the seat, they lost one of their few bridge-builders to moderate and conservative voters — and are now losing ground nationwide in areas once held by candidates with cross-partisan appeal.

The Role of Special Interests

Closed primaries also magnify the influence of special interests. Since 2012, ideological PACs — often funded by a handful of wealthy donors — have been 2 to 6 times more likely than business or labor groups to support challengers in primaries. And when those challengers face candidates backed by mainstream PACs or party networks, the ideological candidates are about four times more likely to win.

In low-turnout closed primaries, that money goes further: candidates who would struggle in a general election can still prevail in the primary with the backing of a small but well-funded faction. For example, Blake Masters in Arizona benefitted from millions in spending by Club for Growth Action, a conservative PAC funded by just a few billionaire donors, and Jamie McLeod-Skinner in Oregon drew major support from Protect Our Future PAC, bankrolled almost entirely by Sam Bankman-Fried. Both sailed to victory in their primaries — and both went on to lose in November.

The result is not just unrepresentative nominees, but a politics increasingly shaped by narrow interests and the influence of special-interest money. By allowing all voters to participate, open primaries dilute that influence and make candidates more accountable to the broader electorate.

The Alternative: How Consensus Candidates Compete

Open, all-candidate primaries create a different set of incentives. Because every voter can participate and every candidate appears on the same ballot, regardless of party, survival depends on appealing to a broad electorate rather than a partisan niche.

Consider Alaska. In 2022, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) faced fierce attacks from Trump and his allies after supporting bipartisan infrastructure and gun-safety legislation. In a closed primary, those positions might have ended her career. But under Alaska’s new open, top-four system paired with ranked-choice voting, Murkowski could campaign to the whole electorate. Exit polls showed that more than half of Alaskans approved of her bipartisan record. She won reelection with crossover support from independents and Democrats — the kind of coalition that closed primaries punish.

That same year, Democrat Mary Peltola won Alaska’s at-large House seat. Running on a message of “fish, family, and freedom,” she consistently attracted Republican and independent voters in addition to her base. In an open system, her ability to build a broad coalition was decisive. However, in 2024 the seat flipped: Republican Nick Begich III narrowly defeated Peltola after all the ranked-choice ballots were tabulated, shifting the seat back to the GOP.

The contrast is clear: in closed primaries, candidates like Oz, Walker, Lake, and McLeod-Skinner could lean on partisan bases to win nominations but fell short in November. In open systems, candidates like Murkowski and Peltola had to — and did — build majority coalitions to succeed.

Conclusion: Making Representation Work

Closed primaries produce unrepresentative candidates — nominees who can energize the most partisan voters but fail to connect with the broader public. That weakens political parties, costs winnable races, and leaves voters with fewer viable choices.

Open, all-candidate primaries reward coalition-building. They ensure that the candidates who advance are those who can appeal beyond a faction to win majority support. In a democracy meant to represent all of us, that’s the kind of incentive we need.

‍