Open Primaries Versus a Nonpartisan Universal Primary

This November, voters in Nevada, Colorado, and Idaho will decide whether to adopt versions of the "Alaska model," a system that replaces party primaries with a single open-to-all primary and a general election using ranked-choice voting (RCV). Arizona and Montana are also considering similar reforms, though without deciding whether to use RCV or another method like runoffs.

• But what's the difference between the newer Alaska model and the older open primary system? In the traditional open primary, any voter can participate in a party's primary, allowing independents greater influence. However, this model has faced criticism for allowing manipulation by rival parties and infringing on political parties' freedom of association.
• The Alaska model avoids these issues. It lets all candidates run in a single primary, with the top finishers advancing, regardless of party. This ensures broad voter participation while preventing party manipulation. Parties remain free to choose their candidates privately, but taxpayers are no longer funding that process, and everyone has a fair shot at the general election.

For clarity, terms like "nonpartisan" or "universal primary" better describe this new model compared to the older "open primary" system.

Read the full piece: https://​www​.cato​.org/​b​l​o​g​/​o​p​e​n​-​p​r​i​m​a​r​i​e​s​-​v​e​r​s​u​s​-​n​o​n​p​a​r​t​i​s​a​n​-​u​n​i​v​e​r​s​a​l​-​p​r​imary

If you would like to speak with Walter, please let us know:

Josh Grossman
Cato Institute
pr@​cato.​org