Plurality Wins
and Runoff Elections in US Congressional Primary Elections:
1994-2002
Most states do not require candidates to
receive any kind of minimum threshold of support in primaries for
congressional elections. As a result, many primaries are won
with a plurality of the vote rather than a majority of the
vote � 214 US House primaries and 29 U.S. Senate primaries
in the election years from 1994-2002 alone. Plurality elections mean
that a candidate can be a party�s nominee even if the majority of
the voters in the primary
would have favored another candidate.
A close analysis of these congressional primary elections
suggest two important findings: 1) that winners of plurality
primaries may be weaker nominees than ones who ran in primaries with
a majority requirement; and 2) a relatively high number of open
seats in districts that are safe for one party are contested and
won by candidates who won their primary with a mere
plurality and could poorly reflect voters in their district.
The five elections from 1994 through
2002 demonstrate that plurality wins in
congressional primaries are relatively widespread. In these five elections,
there were 214 plurality primary wins in U.S. House primaries and
29 in U.S. Senate primaries. In addition, 66 pluralities were avoided
in House primaries and 12 in Senate primaries because of
provisions in those states allowing for a second-round runoff
election between the top two candidates if no candidate in the first
round obtained a certain level of support.
Plurality
Wins in Congressional Primaries, 1994-2002
|
House |
Senate |
Plurality Primaries |
214 |
29 |
Pluralities Avoided by Runoffs |
66 |
12 |
Candidates Elected After Plurality Primary Victory |
89 |
3 |
Candidates Elected After Runoff Victory |
38 |
1 |
Source: Federal Elections
(94-2002): Election Results for the US Senate and the US House
of Representatives. Copyright of the Federal Elections
Commission, Washington, DC.
Weaker Nominees?
Given that many primaries were won by only a plurality of the
vote, how do these primary winners then fare in general elections?
Overall, plurality primary winners lost in the general election
about half the time: 89 of the 214 recent plurality winners for
House races were elected, or 42%. The success rate for plurality
winners in U.S. Senate races is much worse, as only three of
29 went on to win (10%). Candidates who went through a
primary runoff tended to fare somewhat better in general elections:
38 of the 66 such candidates went on to win the general
election for House races (58%), although only one of twelve
(8%) Senate primary runoff winners were elected. Many
factors ultimately decide the general election, but this evidence
suggests that plurality voting systems for primaries might not be
the best way for a party to nominate a strong candidate.
Weaker Representatives?
Plurality voting in primaries also can
result in at least some weak elected representatives. Most
congressional seats are �safe� for one of the major parties,
meaning that the demographics and history of that district
make a candidate from one party nearly certain to win regardless of how
strong a candidate they are. In our analysis, �safe seats� are seats
in districts in which we project one party to win at least 58% of the
vote in an open seat election based upon reliable partisan indicators in previous elections.
Safe seats can generate unrepresentative nominees because the primary vote is
decisive, and voter participation is traditionally much lower for primaries than in general
elections. The use of plurality elections in primaries can exacerbate this problem. In a
safe seat it is possible for a candidate to win the nomination
of the majority party with a very low percentage of the
vote, benefitting from a split among other candidates, and
then go on to almost certain victory in the
general election and secure re-election thereafter. See our Monopoly Politics and Dubious Democracy reports
for more information about safe seats
in our
congressional elections.
Looking at open US House seats
in 1994-2002, 31 primaries were won with less than 50% of
the vote by candidates whose parties were �safe� in that district. Many of
these pluralities were notably low. For example, Democrat Mike Doyle
of Pennsylvania won his primary in 1994 with less than 20% of the
vote, but then went on to comfortable victory in 18th District. In
Massachusetts, Democrat Michael Capuano won the 8th
District after taking
only 23% in the primary in 1998. In 2000, Republican Brian
Kerns won Indiana's 7th district after receiving 39% of the primary
vote, and Republican Jo Ann Davis won Virgina's first
district after winning her primary with 35%. These and other examples of low
percentage plurality victories illustrate how a very small
percentage of primary voters can effectively decide the outcome of
the entire election. Interestingly, between 1994 and 2002, 20
pluralities in open �safe seats� were avoided because of provisions
in those states requiring runoff elections.
Conclusions
The fact that plurality-based primaries
often allow for the nomination of a candidate with less than a
majority of support within his or her party can
be troublesome implications for fair elections. First, it means
that a candidate might be nominated against the wishes of the
majority of the voters of a particular party. This is especially
problematic when such candidates beat stronger candidates through
vote-splitting. Secondly, using plurality voting in primaries when
we have so many safe seats means that candidates
can represent districts in Congress even when not necessarily
representative of their party, let alone their district.
As long as the United States continues to
use single-member districts for congressional elections, adopting the
instant runoff voting (IRV)
method of voting would improve our process. Strategically, it is
good for parties because it ensures that their strongest candidates
are not defeated in primaries due to vote-splitting. With IRV,
political parties could be more confident that their nominee is
actually favored by most of its voters and is therefore more
likely to be a strong candidate in the general election. Given the
American ideal of democracy involving the will of the majority, IRV
is also more democratic than plurality-based voting systems because
it ensures that nominees have at least 50% of
the support of their party. Adopting IRV would guarantee that no candidate is nominated with a
mere 25% of the vote. Because of its
strategic advantages and greater democratic character, using IRV in
congressional primaries would be a positive step towards a healthier
democracy.
Related Link
Plurality wins in
general elections in the US House
Return to Plurality Index. |