American elections are incredibly disaggregated; each county has their own board of elections that is responsible for executing an election while adhering to the election rules established by each state. General elections are, for the most part, uniform in how they are administered. From state to state, there will be different requirements to register to vote and different rules regulating how, where, and when an individual can vote; but, generally speaking, the process to vote in Boise, Idaho is functionally the same as the process to vote in Baltimore, Maryland on that first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. The same cannot be said of our primary and caucus elections.
States and political parties have more control over how primary and caucus elections are conducted. To the point where the election process during the Iowa Caucus will be unfamiliar and perhaps foreign to someone used to a normal primary election. The extent to which individuals are able to participate varies widely from state to state as well; from open primaries that allow any registered voter—regardless of party affiliation, to participate—to closed primaries that only allow voters registered with the party to participate.
This disparity in the administration of primary elections has drawn the attention of good-governance groups who make the argument that closed primaries are locking some people out of the primary process, namely independent voters, and have the effect of electing more partisan representatives. My home state of Ohio currently has partially open primaries, meaning that voters can request either party's ballot on the day of the primary election. However, Republicans in the state are looking to change how Ohio conducts its primaries, in September 2023 Senator Michele Reynolds (R – Canal Winchester) sponsored a bill which would close Ohio primaries. So lets examine whether the openness of a state's primary does have any noticeable effects on its elected representatives.
Given that the election system and the openness of that system vary from state to state we are able to isolate each and look at whether they have an effect on the outcome of elections. First, we will look at the caucus and primary system to see how the different systems affect turnout—are voters being shut out of primaries and caucuses. Second, we will look at primary access and its affect on the partisan makeup of Congress—does the primary type affect the partisanship of elected representatives.
Before looking at the turnout results of primaries compared to caucuses, we should outline the differences between the two. Primary elections look more like general elections, with voters reporting to polling stations and casting a ballot in a voting booth. Vote-by-mail and early voting is also often available during primary elections, giving voters more opportunities to cast their ballots. Caucuses can be thought of as party meetings. These are held on a single evening at a single location in each county or voting precinct. Candidate surrogates will make the case for their candidate and party members will debate before the vote is held.
As may be clear, it is easier to vote in a primary election than it is in a caucus. Barriers to voting are inherently problematic in a representative democracy—after all, if not all voters are represented its not a democracy that is particularly representative. If we focus on this for a moment longer, the consequences of the barriers to participation in caucuses become more problematic. Being held on a single night means that voters that are not able to take time off work, find child care, or able to be relieved of any other obligations they may have are unable to participate. Furthermore, being held at only one location in each county or precinct means that those with limited mobility will have difficulty getting to the caucus location. The population of people that we are describing here is going to tend towards poor or working-class adults, people with disabilities, and the elderly that are being systematically excluded from caucus elections.
Looking at Presidential primaries and caucuses from 2008 to 2020, there is a large disparity between turnout of registered voters in states with primaries compared to states with caucuses. This includes election years when both parties have an open field without an incumbent candidate.
Given that turnout in caucuses is extraordinarily low, averaging 5.6% in the last four primary and caucus cycles, it would seem that we should move on from this system entirely. It is not even a difficult case of arguing what new, alternative system we should use. We have another system in place in a majority of states that sees almost 7x the turnout in our primary election system.
That said, I do not think we should be satisfied with an average turnout of 35% in primary elections, or even the 42% average of 2008 and 2016 when both parties had an open field during the primary. The candidates in the general election should not be determined by less than half of registered voters in any given year.
Looking more closely at primary turnout specifically we are able to observe another distinct cleavage between the two primary types; open and closed primaries. As previously mentioned, there is a spectrum of primary access from open to all registered voter to closed to all but registered party members, depending on the state. One might intuit that there is a direct relationship between the openness of a primary and participation by voters.
To add another layer to why low voter turnout during primary and caucus elections is problematic; not only do obstacles to voting make it more difficult for marginalized communities to participate in the election, but more partisan voters are more likely to participate in primary and caucus elections. So not only are specific groups' views and perspectives not being considered during primary and caucus elections, but the more extreme views of the parties are weighted more heavily.
This leads nicely into our second topic; the partisan effect of open versus closed primaries. Similar to the effect on voter turnout, one may also intuit that the openness of a primary would correlate to how partisan elected representatives are.
DW Nominate tracks how partisan Senators and Representatives are based on their voting record—with 0 being non partisan; negative values being left leaning and positive values right leaning. Using this metric we are able to group the Senators and Representatives from each party based on whether they are from a state with an open primary system or a closed primary system. Refer to the table below for the results for elected officials for the congressional sessions from 2011 through 2021.
In defending her bill to close Ohio primaries, State Senator Reynolds argues that a closed primary is needed to prevent voters from switching their party affiliation the day of the primary to manipulate the results of the election—voting against a candidate instead of for one. Proponents of the bill have not been able to provide evidence that this kind of election manipulation has occurred at a scale which affected the outcome of an election. In fact, the proponents of this bill have not been able to provide any evidence that this has occurred at all; proponents including Secretary of State, and head elections official, Frank LaRose.
Those opposing closing Ohio primaries, and opposing closed primaries more generally, argue that closed primaries suppress voter turnout by excluding independent voters and by excluding independent voters limit the moderating effect on the election resulting in more partisan representatives. I have attempted to validate the conclusion of those opponents to closed primaries herein, however, I would like to add a bit of nuance to the attributed cause of excluding independent voters.
While it is true that voters identifying as "Independent" has steadily increased throughout the new millennia, these independents are more partisan that independent voters of the past. That is according to Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt who found in his paper, Polarization and the Decline of Americas Floating Voter, that between 2000 and 2004 voters who identified as independents voted more consistently for a single party than those who identified as strong partisans from 1972 to 1976. This suggests that if a state was to close its primary these voters could register with one of the major parties without concern that they may want to vote in another party's primary in the next cycle. It is also the case that the increase in voters identifying as Independent has been driven primarily by Gen X and Millennial voters. Younger voters tend to be less politically engaged and those who are less politically engaged are less likely to participate in primary elections. So low participation of independent voters may be more of a function of their cohort's political engagement.
I do not have an alternative theory for why closed primaries reduce voter turnout and produce more partisan representatives. It may be the case that states with closed primaries correlates closely to states with stricter voting laws more generally, having the knock-on effect of more partisan elections with lower turnout. The Election Law Journal's Cost of Voting Index throws that theory into doubt, however, with the "cost of voting" appearing to be fairly evenly distributed among open and closed primaries. It may be the case that by design closed primaries present barriers to entry, even for registered, partisan voters and it is this structure that is the problem. Whether this is the case or not it would seem there is little risk in abandoning closed primaries in favor of open primaries.
