In the 2022 midterms, only 21.3% of eligible voters cast ballots in primary elections, compared with 46% in the general election. If elections that often decide who represents us also have the lowest turnout, that’s a problem worth fixing.

We need to make primary elections as accessible and straightforward as we can. Instead, the rules change from state to state. Primaries are held everywhere from March to September. Some states have open primaries. Others have closed primaries. Depending on where you live, the election process can look completely different.

Late primaries leave nominees with very little time before the general election. Winning a primary is only the beginning of a general election campaign. Nominees have to unite their party, build a campaign organization, raise money, introduce themselves to voters, and respond to attacks from their opponents. Candidates who emerge from September primaries have only a matter of weeks to do what candidates in states with spring primaries have been doing for months.

That’s not fair to them, and it isn’t fair to voters who deserve enough time to evaluate the people asking for their support. The obvious question is why we continue doing it this way. Part of the answer may simply be tradition and state independence. States have built their own election calendars over decades, some want the influence that comes with voting earlier, and others may be reluctant to change a system that benefits their parties or candidates. But none of those are good enough reasons to keep a system that discourages participation and leaves nominees scrambling before November.

Election administration belongs to the states, and it should remain that way. I’m not suggesting Congress dictate when every state must hold its primary. But Washington has long encouraged states to adopt policies it believes serve the public interest through funding, grants, and incentives. The same approach could encourage states to move their primaries to the spring or no later than late June. States would remain in control of their own elections, while additional federal funding or administrative support would simply provide an incentive to adopt an earlier primary calendar.

If we were designing the system from scratch today, I suspect we’d go even further. We’d probably hold one national primary day, just as we already have one national Election Day. We’d make both days national holidays so people didn’t have to choose between voting and going to work. Another option would be a rotating primary calendar, where states take turns voting earlier rather than allowing the same states to dominate the beginning of the process every cycle. That would preserve a state-by-state system while giving more voters a meaningful chance to help shape the field.

We should also ask whether we’re making participation more difficult than it needs to be. Primary rules vary just as much as the dates. While we’re rethinking the calendar, we should also take another look at who gets to participate. Many states still hold closed primaries, preventing independent and unaffiliated voters from helping choose the candidates who may ultimately represent them. That’s a conversation worth having.

Most of our election debates happen after people cast their ballots. We argue about recounts, certification, and election security. We spend far less time asking whether we’ve made it easy enough for people to vote in the first place.

Holding primaries months apart, scheduling some of them during the least convenient time of the year, and leaving nominees only weeks before a general election doesn’t strengthen our democracy. It weakens participation, creates unnecessary disadvantages, and makes an already complicated election system harder to navigate.

FORGET SMEAR CAMPAIGNS. POLITICIANS NOW USE COPYRIGHT LAW TO SCRUB THE TRUTH

If voting is one of the most important responsibilities of citizenship, then every part of our election system should encourage participation, not make it harder. 

Our primary system should reflect that.

Dave Spencer is a fifth-generation Rockefeller, political commentator, and host of the Practically Political podcast. Raised in an extended family that included both a Republican governor and a Democratic senator, he brings a pragmatic, center-right perspective rooted in bipartisan problem-solving. Drawing on his background in business, strategy, and public affairs, Dave focuses on the incentives that shape political behavior and offers practical, solutions-oriented analysis of today’s biggest political issues.