Nonpartisan primaries are better with ranked choice voting
Executive summary
- “Nonpartisan primaries” are primaries in which candidates from all parties appear on the same ballot, and the top vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan affiliations.
- Nonpartisan primaries are stronger when ranked choice voting (RCV) is used in the primary and/or general election. RCV gives voters a wider range of choices, and allows them to vote honestly. RCV ensures that nominees and winners represent the consensus of the electorate, and prevents vote-splitting that can otherwise shut a major party out of the general election.
What are nonpartisan primaries?
Nonpartisan primaries are a hot election reform. Adopted by four states, the method involves one “all-comers” primary, open to all voters. The top vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan affiliations. (In California, Washington, and Louisiana, the top two vote-getters advance to a single-choice general election. In Alaska, the top four vote-getters advance to an RCV general election.)
Pros and cons of nonpartisan primaries
Advocates for nonpartisan primaries argue that primaries are often the most important part of the election cycle, and all voters should have the chance to participate. 80% of congressional districts are considered “safe” for one party, meaning that the outcome is essentially decided in the primary. Nonpartisan primaries are designed to fix this problem by 1) giving all voters a voice in the primary, and 2) advancing more popular and representative candidates to the general election, which will make the general election itself more competitive.
However, without RCV, nonpartisan primaries can be plagued by “vote-splitting” and unrepresentative outcomes. Consider the 2012 race for California’s 31st congressional district, a Democratic-leaning district in Southern California. In the nonpartisan primary, the vote share between Republicans and Democrats was about evenly split. However, within the parties, the Republican vote was split between two candidates, and the Democratic vote was split between four. With votes fractured between the Democratic candidates, the two Republican candidates advanced to the general election, and Democrats were shut out of the general election ballot.
Parties – both as organizations and as collections of voters – should not be punished when many candidates run under their label. Though CA-31 is an example of vote-splitting within the Democratic Party, vote-splitting often harms Republicans as well. For example, in the 2022 race for the California State Senate’s District 4 seat, almost 60% of the primary electorate voted for a Republican. However, because that vote was split between six candidates, no Republican advanced. Rather, the two Democratic candidates advanced with a combined 40%.
The case for RCV
Ranked choice voting would address vote-splitting in nonpartisan primaries, like we see in the California examples above. In RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. When votes are counted, lower-performing candidates are eliminated and party voters can essentially work together to consolidate behind one candidate (or more) of their choice. RCV does a better job of capturing what voters actually want – and it also identifies the strongest nominees who are well-poised to compete in front of the general electorate.
As Alaska has demonstrated, it’s also possible to improve the nonpartisan primary framework by using RCV in the general election. With the nonpartisan primary + RCV model, the larger November electorate gets four or five choices instead of just two. This leaves room for Republicans and Democrats, as well as potentially third-party and independent candidates as well. This is what happened in Alaska’s first use of the system in 2022. The gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House races all featured at least one Democrat and one Republican on the general election ballot.
But single-choice elections, as we know, are not well-suited to handle elections with more than two candidates. A candidate could win a four-candidate general election with just over 25% of votes. Ideologically similar candidates could split the vote with each other.
So Alaska uses ranked choice voting in the general election – allowing voters to rank candidates and using an instant runoff to determine which candidate has the broadest support. Nevadans recently voted to adopt a version of the Alaska model (though with five candidates instead of four), but the measure needs to pass again in 2024 to go into effect.
Notably, RCV in the general election fosters the exact kind of voter and candidate independence desired by reformers pushing nonpartisan primaries. Candidates are rewarded for appealing across party lines, and some voters rank candidates of multiple parties for the same office – rather than feeling pressured to use their single choice on a candidate from their preferred party.
If reformers want to use nonpartisan primaries, RCV is a critical part of that equation.
This is the first post in FairVote’s #PutRCVOnIt series, where we examine how RCV works in conjunction with, and improves, other election reforms. We acknowledge that there are many ideas for improving American democracy, but also that no reform is a silver bullet. We explain why RCV is a key piece of the puzzle, and how it fits in with other pieces.
