GD POLITICS PODCAST Episode Title: How To Make Elections Competitive In A Gerrymandered America Host: Galen Druke
Guest: Richard Barton, Fellow at Unite America & Political Science Professor at Syracuse University
Date: September 1, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the crisis of electoral competitiveness in the United States, especially in the wake of severe gerrymandering and the increasing dominance of partisan primaries. Host Galen Druke and guest Richard Barton discuss why so few House districts are competitive, the limitations of current reform efforts, and why Barton and Unite America advocate for reforms like open all-candidate primaries and ranked choice voting. The conversation addresses academic research, party dynamics, polarization, and pathways forward for American democracy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Crisis of Electoral Competition (00:39)

• Shrinking Number of Competitive Districts:
  • Only 7% of House districts are even "likely" contests; 84% are solid for one party, and 30 states have no competitive House races.
  • "91% of districts aren't particularly competitive." (A, 00:39)
• Role of Gerrymandering:
  • The current redistricting efforts are expected to make matters worse, potentially reducing competitive seats further.

2. Is It Time to Give Up on Redistricting Reform? (02:21)

• Barton’s Take:
  • Despite setbacks, Barton and Unite America still support independent redistricting as the ideal.
  • Admits it’s tempting for Democrats to "fight fire with fire" since there's no public backlash for aggressive partisan tactics (B, 03:31).
• Norm Violations and Lack of Electoral Penalty:
  • "There is not going to be an electoral penalty for pursuing these kinds of reforms...because there is no public backlash from these kinds of actions." (B, 03:28)
  • Voters disapprove of gerrymandering in surveys but rarely alter their political behavior over it (B, 04:22).

3. The Disconnection Between Voters and Reform Incentives (06:06)

• Survey Insights:
  • Partisan primary voters are more polarized than the general electorate; Democratic primary voters are more supportive of liberal democracy, while the general electorate is less committed than expected.

4. How Uncompetitive Elections Warp Representation (06:35)

• Primaries as the Real Battleground:
  • In most districts, "the representative is decided" in the primary, not the general election (B, 07:24).
  • Politicians are incentivized to prioritize primary voters, donors, and activists.

5. What’s Wrong with the Current System? (09:32)

• Fragmented Power and Polarization:
  • The intentional fragmentation of governance (federalism, bicameralism, separation of powers) worsens dysfunction in the presence of two highly polarized parties (B, 09:48).
  • "One of the reasons why our legislative bodies are so polarized is because the sort of voters and donors and activist groups that are bringing them into office are not representative of the general electorate..." (B, 10:43)

6. The Solutions Under Debate (08:08, 12:17)

• Independent Redistricting Isn't Enough:
  • "The US Senate isn't gerrymandered...but we still see a lot of problems." (B, 08:38)
• Making Primaries More Representative – Open All-Candidate Primaries:
  • All voters participate; all candidates compete together (B, 09:32).
• Party Bosses vs. Full Democratization:
  • Barton outlines a spectrum: from smoke-filled rooms (party elites select candidates) to open, all-candidate primaries.

7. Does Increased Moderation Actually Matter? (11:09)

• Moderation as a Byproduct, Not a Goal:
  • Most Americans have cross-cutting, pragmatic political preferences; a less polarized, more coalition-driven Congress would better reflect this (B, 11:09).

8. Is System Change the Right Focus? (15:06)

• System vs. Political Culture:
  • Despite stable primary rules for over a century, outcomes have worsened due to political actors becoming more able to "capture" primaries (B, 15:55).
  • The real crisis is recent; system reforms alone may not suffice.

Evidence from Research & Counterarguments

9. Mixed Academic Findings on Primary Reform (18:00)

• Druke cites multiple studies:

  • 2014 & 2016 studies found minimal effect from open primaries on moderation.
  • Primary voters aren't much more extreme than general election voters from their party, according to some research.
  • “These results suggest that the composition of primary electorates do not exert a polarizing effect above what might arise from voters in the party as a whole.” (A, 18:52)

• Barton’s Rebuttal:

  • Newer studies with larger datasets do show depolarizing effects from open all-candidate primaries (B, 19:49).
  • The biggest effects are seen where all candidates and voters participate together (“top two,” “top four,” and “jungle primary” systems), not just slightly more open versions of existing partisan primaries (B, 22:31).

Memorable Quote:

"I'm doing battle with a bunch of people who frankly are smarter than I am. But I'm still right on this issue..."
(Barton, 19:49)

10. How Primary Electorates Have Changed (22:45)

• Recent years (since the Obama era) have seen increased ideological skew in primary electorates, especially on cultural issues (B, 22:45).

Case Studies & Real-World Evidence

11. Lessons from Louisiana and Alaska (29:18, 32:53, 33:21)

• Louisiana’s Jungle Primary:
  • Less legislative polarization since implementing the system.
  • Enabled a pragmatic Democrat (John Bel Edwards) to win and expand Medicaid in a deep red state due to the more inclusive primary system.
• Alaska’s Top-Four RCV System:
  • Example: Senator Lisa Murkowski survives due to diverse cross-party support, fostering bipartisan coalitions.

12. The Challenge with Ballot Initiatives (34:51)

• In 2024, six states saw nonpartisan primary/reform proposals fail on the ballot; even Alaska’s system nearly got repealed.
• Why?:
  • "A lot of elite opposition...you see opposition often from the establishments of both political parties" (B, 34:51).
  • Voters can be supportive in principle, but support erodes in the heat of actual campaigns.

13. Do These Reforms Weaken Parties? (37:24)

• Barton’s Research:
  • Open all-candidate primaries may actually help party-preferred candidates.
  • “We find that actually in open all candidate primary states, the party establishment is more likely...to advance to the general election.” (B, 39:18)
• Parties can still endorse and designate their candidates even under open systems.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On the effects of open primaries:
"These reforms are not going to bring us to a level of like Kumbaya between the parties... But...the politics of the mid-1990s to the late 2000 aughts were significantly preferable in my opinion to what we've seen over the last decade." (B, 29:18)

On PR and Multi-Party Systems:
"I would not wave my magic wand and institute proportional representation in the US...I think there is value in a big tent party..." (B, 43:08)

On American moderation:
"Most voters want a bit more pragmatism and problem solving within their government...their views suggest that they are interested in more dynamic coalition building..." (B, 11:09)

On why parties might fear reform:
"The perception that political parties have is that these reforms are an attack on them...any sort of incumbent is going to be really, you know, risk averse to changing an electoral system that elected them." (B, 34:51)

Important Timestamps

• 00:39 – Stats on House competitiveness
• 02:21 – Intro to gerrymandering & independent redistricting debate
• 06:35 – Why primaries matter more than general elections
• 12:17 – How nominations work; smoke-filled rooms vs. democratization
• 18:00 – Academic evidence on whether primary reform works
• 29:18 – Louisiana as a case study
• 33:21 – Alaska’s top-four system & Lisa Murkowski
• 34:51 – Why reforms fail at the ballot box
• 37:24 – Do these reforms actually weaken political parties?
• 41:16 – Barton’s “magic wand” fix: top-four with RCV
• 43:08 – Why Barton stops short of supporting PR/multi-party systems

Host Reflections & Bonus Segment (44:46)

Druke’s Take

• In a two-party system, open all-candidate primaries are worth a try, since closed party primaries can squash dissent and limit voter choice.
• "As an unaligned voter, I would love to vote in a primary." (A, 45:43)
• Both agree the American context makes proportional representation especially fraught, potentially increasing racial or social divisions and undermining local representation.

Conclusion

This episode provided a rigorous, data-driven yet highly accessible discussion of the lack of competitive elections in America and the difficulties of reform. Barton argues persuasively for open all-candidate primaries and ranked choice voting as modest but meaningful ways to make elections more competitive, politicians less polarized, and parties potentially healthier. Both speakers stressed the complex interplay between institutional fixes and broader political culture, and concluded—realistically but optimistically—that careful reform may not cure all ills, but can certainly make American democracy much more responsive and functional.

For more information and future episodes, visit GD Politics.