.png)
As the federal government enters the fourth week of its shutdown, the public frustration is familiar — but the root cause remains under-examined. Once again, Congress has reached a standstill not just over spending priorities, but over incentives: many lawmakers see little political risk in refusing to compromise.
Yet the American public sees things differently. According to an October 2025 Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, 70% of Americans oppose the shutdown, and 65% believe Democrats should accept the Republicans’ continuing resolution to keep the government funded.
Here’s a shocking idea: what if the incentives for politicians were aligned with acting in the best interest of voters? What if we adopted better rules that encourage competition, demand more accountability, and levy a greater political cost for obstructing progress?
This piece highlights several elected officials — Republicans and Democrats alike — who are speaking out against the shutdown and calling for cooperation. What they share in common isn’t party or ideology, but the systems that elected them: competitive districts and open, all-candidate primaries that make them accountable to a broader range of voters. Open primaries can realign incentives across our politics — rewarding problem-solving instead of partisanship.
In most states, closed primaries shut out millions of voters — especially independents — who aren’t registered with a major party. These taxpayers fund primary elections, but in many states are barred from participating. When only a narrow slice of partisan voters determine who advances to November, candidates are rewarded for appealing to their base, not for solving problems for everyone. With nearly 9 in 10 general elections uncompetitive, it's the primaries that now often determine the winner — long before November.
This dynamic is what we call the Primary Problem. In 2024, just 7% of eligible voters effectively decided 87% of U.S. House races — a tiny, highly partisan electorate determining who governs everyone else. The majority of Americans — including 43% who now identify as independents — had no real voice in those decisive elections.
That helps explain why shutdowns like the one unfolding now are less about fiscal responsibility and more about partisan leverage. As Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano told reporters this week, “The shutdown is — politically speaking — actually good politics for both sides. Refusing to budge helps with the only election that matters in most races: the primary.”
Recent polling underscores the gap. An October 2025 AP-NORC survey found that nearly six in ten independents view the shutdown as a “major problem” — a higher share than among partisans in either major party. The very voters most frustrated by dysfunction are the ones most excluded from the process that creates it.
In short: a system that discourages broad participation also discourages broad cooperation.
Open, all-candidate primaries — where every voter can participate and every candidate appears on the same ballot — flip those incentives. They require candidates to appeal to a wider share of the electorate and reward problem-solving over posturing.
Because survival in these systems depends on appealing beyond the base, leaders are freer to pursue pragmatic solutions once in office. In Alaska, for example, where the state adopted a top-four primary paired with an instant runoff, elected officials have shown greater independence and coalition-building. In Nebraska, a nonpartisan legislature elected through open primaries consistently passes bipartisan budgets and tax reforms.
The logic is simple: when more voters matter, governing for the majority becomes a political advantage — not a liability.
Across the country, some of the loudest voices calling to end the current shutdown come from competitive districts and open-primary states. Their experiences show how inclusive election systems can create stronger incentives to compromise.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R–AK) - Elected under Alaska’s top-four primary system, which allows every voter to participate regardless of party.
“There is no such thing as a good government shutdown, and it is imperative that we come together to put a quick end to this one…I am willing to talk with any of my colleagues, and welcome good faith negotiations to make this shutdown as short and painless as possible for the American people.”
“We’re not going to be able to address the issues of our government unless we can come together… Unity is what we need to end a government shutdown.”
Sen. John Fetterman (D–PA) - Represents one of the nation’s most competitive Senate seats in a state with closed primaries, where leaders who work across the aisle risk backlash from within their own party.
“I won’t vote for the chaos of shuttering our government… My vote was for our country over my party…together, we must find a better way forward.”
Rep. Young Kim (R–CA-40) - Represents a highly competitive Southern California district under the state’s top-two primary, where all voters and candidates share a single ballot.
“A government shutdown is costly, gets us nowhere, and hurts the American people. History has shown that shutdowns achieve nothing and cost families far too much — from delays in Social Security benefits to uncertainty for our servicemembers standing watch overseas. We can and must do better.”
Sen. John Curtis (R–UT) - Serving in a state that allows unaffiliated voters to participate in Republican primaries, Curtis has built a reputation for pragmatic leadership and cross-party collaboration.
“I voted to keep the federal government open and to prevent unnecessary harm to hardworking, tax-paying families…My mission is to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build a process that reflects those principles, one that ends the cycle of crisis management and restores public trust.”
Rep. Troy Carter (D–LA-2), joined by Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS-04) and Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX-07) - Elected under Louisiana’s open, all-candidate primary, which eliminates closed partisan contests and incentivizes broader coalitions.
“We cannot allow the dysfunction of government to punish everyday Americans by letting the National Flood Insurance Program lapse, leaving families and businesses without critical protection… A shutdown shouldn’t be allowed to jeopardize disaster recovery, delay home sales, or leave flood victims waiting for the help they desperately need.”
Together, these examples show how systems that broaden voter participation — or simply create real accountability — encourage leaders to prioritize solutions over stalemates.
Shutdowns aren’t inevitable; they’re the predictable result of election systems that reward a narrow few instead of the full electorate. By opening primaries to every voter, states can strengthen representation, increase accountability, and create stronger incentives for leaders to solve problems — not prolong them.
The evidence is clear:
Ending a shutdown requires more than temporary budget deals; it requires rethinking the political incentives that led here. Systems that welcome every voter and encourage every candidate to compete on one ballot don’t just produce fairer elections — they produce legislators more willing to govern.
If we want a Congress that compromises to keep the country running, we need elections that make cooperation a winning strategy.
Stay up-to-date on the latest news and resources from Unite America.
.png)
