Introduction

In some ways, Republican Jim Schwartzel and Democrat Daniel Biss couldn’t be more different. The former is a businessman and staunch Florida conservative, the latter a mathematician and Illinois progressive.

Yet this year, both won crowded open-seat congressional primaries – Schwartzel in Florida’s ruby-red 19th District, and Biss in Illinois’ deep-blue 9th. Both emerged from negative campaigns defined by other media-friendly candidates in the race. Schwartzel bested two former Republican congressmen who relocated to the district after scandals, while Biss outran a headline-grabbing left-wing digital journalist. 

More importantly, both won their primaries with 29% of the vote – just a small fraction of their own party. And in safe seats, both are all-but-certain to win their general elections this November – and for years to come. 

Candidate	% of votes for winner	# of votes for winner	District population (2024)	Votes for winner as % of district population
Jim Schwartzel (FL-19)	29%	26,153	817,141	3.2%
Daniel Biss (IL-9)	29%	38,804	740,435	5.2%

In a nation where most of us are taught that “majority rules,” Schwartzel and Biss’s experience is not unique. This is how members of Congress are often elected – winning crowded safe-seat primaries with a fraction of the vote, and then coasting to victory in November. 

In 2026, FairVote projects that 21 freshman members of the incoming House of Representatives will be elected this way: nominated without even a majority from their own party, and then winning an uncompetitive seat in November. These candidates, effectively elected with a fraction of a fraction of the vote, will likely represent between 20% and 40% of the incoming House freshman class.¹

They are among 125 total plurality primary winners in congressional and statewide races this year, the highest since FairVote began tracking in 2018. In 2026, this phenomenon has been exacerbated by both midterm retirements and mid-decade redistricting, which created dozens of new seats gerrymandered to advantage one party. 

The problem here is one of democratic legitimacy and accountability, as well as polarization. Nominees who may not have been the most popular candidate within their party can ride one plurality primary win to several terms in Congress. Once in office, members are accountable to only a fraction of a fraction of the electorate. 

Officials effectively elected in low-turnout primaries can have an outsized impact on the entire country – like former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, who was first elected in a plurality primary in 2016, and led the charge to remove House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in 2023. Additionally, long-time incumbents in safe seats may be replaced by more polarizing nominees who only appeal to a narrow – and often extreme – faction of their party. 

The incentives of American politics are aligned less and less to majority rule, and increasingly reward campaigns and candidates with the best answer to the question:

“Who can win with the fewest votes?”

Executive summary

In addition to House primaries, this report examines plurality winners in U.S. Senate and statewide primaries. We lay out our major data findings in this section, and dive into why plurality primary wins matter – as well as case studies – in later sections. 

• In 2026, 125 candidates won congressional and statewide primary elections with a plurality – less than 50% – of votes. That is the highest number of plurality winners since FairVote started tracking in 2018.
• FairVote projects that 21 new members of the House of Representatives will be nominated without a majority, and then win a safe seat in November. 
• The 2026 primaries were impacted by unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering. In 10 of 14 seats (71%) where redistricting advantaged the non-incumbent party, that party’s nominee was a plurality primary winner.
• 2026 also saw the highest number of congressional incumbents not seeking reelection in over 30 years. In states with traditional party primaries, 21 of 39 retiring members (54%) were replaced by a plurality primary winner as their party’s nominee.
• Ranked choice voting (RCV) is a proven solution that ensures election winners have majority support. Looking forward, proportional representation would improve American elections by ensuring nearly all voters can elect someone they support to Congress. 

A look at plurality wins in the 2026 primaries

The United States is not governed by majority rule, but our two-party system means that many general elections are won with majority support – or very close to it. However, primary elections often attract a larger number of competitors, and that number has been increasing in recent cycles. As a result, primary elections allow votes to be split between many candidates, and for candidates to win nomination with a small plurality of votes.

FairVote followed every Democratic and Republican primary election for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and statewide office in 2026, and recorded every candidate who won a nomination with less than 50% of votes. 

A record 125 candidates won their primaries with a plurality² – the highest number since FairVote started tracking in 2018, and a 79% increase over 2024. 93 of these plurality wins were in House seats.

This report looks at the 38 states that held plurality primaries in 2026, which we also call “traditional party primaries” throughout this report.³ There are 288 House districts in these states. Other states use ranked choice voting, “top-two” primaries, or runoffs – systems that prevent plurality wins. 

The chart below shows the 50 candidates with the smallest plurality wins. Readers can also view a stand-alone version of this chart, and our full data set.

Who won a primary with the fewest votes?

Officially, general elections determine who serves in Congress, and primary elections determine which candidates represent the major parties in the general election. However, 80% of House seats are safely Republican or Democratic, and another 14% lean significantly toward one party.⁴ This means that in practice, the primary often decides who serves in Congress. We see the same phenomenon in statewide elections, with most states leaning heavily Democratic or Republican. 

Among this year’s plurality primary winners, 34 won the dominant party’s primary (i.e. a Republican primary in a safe red district, or a Democratic primary in a safe blue district) and are all-but-guaranteed to win their general elections. This includes 21 likely new U.S. House members – likely representing between 20% and 40% of the incoming House freshman class.⁵

This is especially problematic given that primaries tend to have a smaller, less diverse electorate than general elections. If a candidate wins the dominant party’s primary with a plurality of votes, they have essentially won a seat by appealing to a small group of voters within an already small primary electorate.⁸

The impact of redistricting

Leading up to the 2026 primaries, a number of states redrew their congressional maps mid-decade in an unprecedented “gerrymandering war.” A total of 143 House districts were redrawn between the 2024 and 2026 elections, including 57 in states that hold plurality primaries.

Districts that were redrawn had an especially high rate of plurality wins. In 10 out of 14 seats (71%) where mid-decade redistricting advantaged the non-incumbent party,⁹ that party’s nominee won their primary without a majority of votes.

For example, Florida’s new congressional map – passed in a special session without any bipartisan support – included four seats where expected Republican vote share increased by five or more points compared to the prior map. In all four redistricted Florida seats, the Republican nominee received only a plurality of votes in the primary. 

Republican primary plurality wins in redrawn Florida congressional districts

Candidate	% of votes for winner	# of votes for winner	District population (2024)	Votes for winner as % of district population
Dan Green (FL-09)	25.4%	14,748	820,865	1.8%
Mike Beltran (FL-14)	45.6%	25,866	815,745	3.2%
Casey Askar (FL-22)	30.9%	14,774	805,567	1.8%
Scott Singer (FL-25)	31.4%	11,896	770,930	1.5%

Four of the five states with the most plurality winners in House primaries – Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, and North Carolina – redrew their maps in 2025 or 2026: Illinois was the only state in the top five which did not redistrict mid-decade. Florida, which redrew its map in May 2026, had 17 House primaries with plurality winners – the most of any state.

The impact of open seats

Open seats can provide an opportunity for political newcomers, but often lead to plurality wins in crowded primaries.

2026 saw a record 74 incumbent representatives leaving the U.S. House – the highest since at least 1992.

Among the 39 open U.S. House seats with plurality primaries,¹⁰ 21 (54%) saw plurality winners in the incumbent party’s primary – compared to only five in 249 seats where current members sought re-election (2%). In the 28 of these seats considered safe for the incumbent party, 18 (64%) nominees won without a majority.

In Illinois’ primaries this spring, there were five plurality primary wins in safe Democratic races to fill open seats, including for Senate, comptroller, and three U.S. House seats. In Illinois’ 7th District, La Shawn Ford won the race to succeed long-time incumbent Danny Davis. While Ford is almost certainly to win in November and represent around 760,000 people in Congress, he was nominated with only 24% of votes in the Democratic primary – 24,408 votes, or about 3% of the total district population.

This problem is not limited to U.S. House elections. For example, Democratic Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers declined to run for that office again, leaving the Democratic primary open. Seven candidates ran for the nomination in the chaotic race, with David Crowley suspending his campaign and then un-suspending it a month later, and three other candidates also dropping out before primary day. Ultimately, David Crowley won the nomination with 39.8% of the vote, only 3,673 more votes than runner-up Francesca Hong. Not only was Crowley not chosen by a majority of voters, but over 68,000 voters (8.6%) cast a “zombie” vote for a withdrawn candidate.

Select open statewide primary elections

Office	Party	Winner	% won
Illinois comptroller	D	Margaret Croke	34.5%
Rhode Island attorney general	D	Kimberly Ahern	36.3%
Iowa governor	R	Zach Lahn	38.0%
Wisconsin governor	D	David Crowley	39.8%
Illinois U.S. senator	D	Juliana Stratton	40.4%
Kansas governor	R	Ty Masterson	43.2%
Wyoming governor	R	Eric Barlow	45.0%

The solution: ranked choice voting

Instead of plurality primaries, some states hold runoff elections when no candidate receives a majority of votes. While runoff elections can deliver majority winners, they are expensive and usually lead to major declines in voter turnout. The declines are so large that runoff winners frequently have fewer votes than the leader in the initial primary. For example, in 2024, the average decline in turnout was 62% – and 81% of winners had fewer votes in the runoff than the initial election.

Turnout decline in select Texas runoffs, 2026

Ranked choice voting offers a better, faster, cheaper way to pick winners with majority support. It can be used in primaries or general elections for any type of office. RCV is growing in popularity around the country – expanding from just two cities in 2000 to nearly 50 cities, counties, and states in 2026. Some jurisdictions, like New York City, use RCV exclusively in primaries. Other jurisdictions, like Maine and Washington, DC, use RCV in primaries and general elections.

Notably, RCV prevented plurality wins this year – instead delivering widely supported majority winners – in Maine’s crowded gubernatorial and congressional primaries:

• Eight candidates ran for the Republican nomination for governor. Bobby Charles only received 38% of first choices, but grew his support in the RCV tally and ultimately won with 60% of the vote.
• Five candidates ran in the Democratic primary for governor. Nirav Shah received the most first-choice support (27%). However, more voters preferred Hannah Pingree to Shah; in the RCV tally, Pingree won with 56% of the vote.
• In the Democratic primary for Maine’s tossup 2nd District, no candidate won more than a third of first choices. Matt Dunlap won with majority support in the RCV tally.

Ranked choice results of Maine’s Democratic governor primary

When RCV is used in primaries, nominees go into general elections with majority support and a strong mandate from their party’s voters. Additionally, research shows that nominees who win their primaries with majority support tend to do better in general elections.

In both primaries and general elections, RCV gives voters more choices, and winners have support from a majority of voters. And when candidates drop out of a race – as happened in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial primary – votes cast for those candidates aren’t wasted; the voters’ ballots simply count for whomever the voter ranked next.

Looking forward: The Fair Representation Act can transform elections

While ranked choice voting can deliver majority winners in both primary and general elections, it does not solve the problems of gerrymandering and safe seats.

Proportional representation (PR) would deliver fair representation and competition in every general election. In PR elections, different groups of voters elect winners in proportion to their share of the votes cast. For instance, if 60% of votes go to conservatives and 40% go to liberals, then about 60% of seats go to conservatives and 40% go to liberals.

PR is a gerrymandering killer, because drawing members of one party into unfavorable districts no longer denies them a voice – they will still win seats in proportion to their share of the vote.  And in a PR system, nearly every voter would see a candidate they support elected in November – instead of one legislator chosen by a fraction of a fraction in the primary.

The Fair Representation Act (FRA) is the only federal bill that would bring proportional representation to congressional elections, using multi-member congressional districts and ranked choice voting. Several Republicans, Democrats, and others would compete in each district, and every House race would be competitive in November. The FRA would end partisan gerrymandering nationwide, and includes a prohibition on mid-decade redistricting for good measure.

Conclusion

Plurality wins in primary elections are problematic for voters, democracy, and even our political parties. When a fraction of a fraction of voters decides who represents everyone, it is no surprise that we get distorted and polarized outcomes.

In 2026, mid-decade redistricting and a wave of open seats led to a record number of plurality wins – 125 total across congressional and statewide primaries, a 79% increase over the previous cycle. 21 incoming members of the U.S. House of Representatives will get to that office through a plurality primary win in a safe seat. And with frequent wave elections, more partisan redistricting expected in the coming years, and more candidates running for office, the trend is only likely to get worse.

The good news is that there are proven pathways to improve our voting system – to deliver more representative outcomes, to increase competition in general elections, and to lower the temperature of our politics. Though many Americans are used to the way we vote now, traditional party primaries and choose-one voting are not baked into our founding documents or principles.¹¹

More states and cities should adopt ranked choice voting to ensure majority winners in crowded primaries. We should also look to proportional representation as a long-term, durable national solution to move us away from minority rule by a fraction of primary voters – and toward elections that offer real competition and choice for every voter.

References

1. Based on Congressional Research Service’s count of freshmen House members over the past five Congresses.
2. Includes the NJ-11 special primary election and the OK-01 primary, where the eventual nominee was headed to a runoff until the other candidate withdrew.
3. These numbers include the four Alabama House seats held under a special primary using choose-one voting.
4. Evaluated using FairVote’s 2026 Monopoly Politics report, updated for mid-decade redistricting. Missouri congressional districts were evaluated using the map the primaries were conducted under – which was adopted in 2025. However, the map is subject to ongoing litigation; at time of writing, the general election is slated to use the map drawn in 2022 instead.
5. 21 of these 25 nominees will be freshmen when elected to the House. The number also includes four sitting members who won primaries without a majority.
6. Determined using 2024 1-year American Community Survey (ACS) data via Census Reporter.
7. This figure includes plurality primary winners in Congress, and statewide offices like governor. The OK-01 race is included.
8.  Includes the four Alabama House seats held under a special primary using choose-one voting. Includes Missouri because its primary was held under a map adopted in 2025. 
9. We include districts where FairVote changed the race rating in our Monopoly Politics report. 
10. Not including candidates who withdrew after the primary. Including the special primary in New Jersey’s 11th District.
11. For information about the history of plurality voting in America, see here.