How the Threat of Being “Primaried” Creates Gridlock in Congress

If it feels like Congress is broken, you’re not alone. Approval ratings for lawmakers scrape historic lows, yet more than 95% of incumbents sail through reelection. Despite urgent national challenges from health care costs to climate change, little seems to get done in Washington. 

Consider just a few examples: comprehensive immigration reform, which won bipartisan Senate support in 2013 but never reached a House vote; the 2013 Manchin–Toomey background checks bill proposed after the Sandy Book tragedy, supported by nearly 90% of Americans, that failed in the Senate; bipartisan efforts to stabilize health care markets in 2017, abandoned as both parties feared backlash from their bases; a bipartisan border security and foreign aid deal, derailed in 2024; and a bipartisan tax package with child tax credits, which passed the House but was blocked in the Senate later that same year.

This kind of paralysis is what’s known as gridlock: when Congress is unable to act on pressing issues because political divisions make compromise impossible. 

How do we solve this?

The answer lies in an often-overlooked feature of our system: party primaries.

A System Designed for Gridlock

Most Americans assume that the November general election is what decides who represents us in Congress. In reality, most of the time, the decisive contests take place months earlier in party primaries. In the 2026 midterms, we estimate that 91% of congressional districts will be so safely Democratic or Republican that the winner of the dominant party’s primary is virtually guaranteed to win in November.

That means the only voters who truly matter are those who turn out in primaries — where historically, turnout is only a fraction of general election turnout. In fact, in 2024, just 7% of eligible voters nationwide effectively decided 87% of House races.

Here’s why this fuels gridlock: Compared to general election voters, primary voters are more partisan and ideological. They tend to reward candidates who stick closely to party orthodoxy and punish those who reach across the aisle. As a result, more extreme candidates have a better chance of winning primaries than pragmatic problem-solvers.

​​This creates a constant threat for incumbents: anyone who dares to compromise risks drawing a primary challenger from the extremes of their own party (being “primaried”). As a result, lawmakers avoid compromise—even when most of their constituents agree. That fear locks Congress into stalemate, where cooperation is seen as a liability rather than a strength.

A number of recent cases illustrate how the risk of being “primaried” influences political careers. When Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) considered bipartisan immigration reform in 2014, he was swiftly defeated in a primary challenge. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) stepped down shortly after opposing Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which provoked public threats of a primary challenger from the former president. In Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) has faced public threats of a primary challenge from Trump-aligned activists over her stance on the Hegseth nomination, and she has already drawn at least one announced GOP challenger. 

On the Democratic side, Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ, formerly D) left the party after progressives mobilized a primary challenge over her opposition to filibuster reform; Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) was defeated in 2020 after years of progressive primary threats tied to his opposition to abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act; and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has faced persistent calls for a primary challenger in response to his resistance to climate legislation and filibuster reform.

In each case, incumbents who strayed from party orthodoxy—whether by working across the aisle, governing more moderately, or breaking with Trump—found their political careers cut short or put at risk by small groups of primary voters. This is the core of the problem: our system pushes leaders to put party loyalty ahead of problem-solving. Unless we change the rules, gridlock is here to stay.

A Proven Solution

Gridlock isn’t our fate — it’s the product of rules that can be rewritten. Open primaries, where all candidates compete on the same ballot, have already shown they can shift incentives and reward cooperation.

In Alaska, voters adopted an open, all-candidate primary in 2020, paired with ranked choice voting. In 2022, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) won reelection after supporting bipartisan infrastructure and gun-safety bills, and the system helped produce a bipartisan Senate that boosted public-school funding in 2024 and then overrode the governor’s veto in 2025. California and Washington use top-two primaries, a form of open primary that encourages broad appeal. In 2025, California lawmakers passed a $2.5 billion wildfire relief package with bipartisan support.

Nebraska’s nonpartisan legislature advances candidates from an open primary without party labels, fostering coalition-building; in 2024, it passed $185 million in property-tax relief on a 40–3 vote. Louisiana also uses an open, all-candidates primary with a runoff, a system shown to boost participation, reduce polarization, and elevate moderates — but starting in 2026, the state will return to closed primaries for federal and some statewide races.

Across these states, open primaries have reduced the fear of being “primaried” and replaced it with accountability to the broader electorate. The result: leaders can cross party lines, form bipartisan coalitions, and pass policies with strong public support.

Striking at the Root

Party primaries are the root of political gridlock in America. If we want a government that represents all of us — not just the loudest few — we must strike at that root. 

States like Alaska, California, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana have already shown that when primaries open up to every voter, leaders can form bipartisan coalitions and deliver real results — from education funding to wildfire relief to property tax relief. Open primaries are not just procedural tweaks; they are a proven solution. By changing how we elect our leaders, we can realign incentives, reward cooperation, and put voters back at the center of our democracy.

‍