Opposing Efforts to Disenfranchise Those Who Favor Moderate, Compromise-Oriented Governance

6. Civic Knowledge and Skills

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

June 27, 2026

Democracy works best when citizens can choose among candidates who reflect the full range of public opinion, including those who favor moderation, negotiation, and practical compromise. In the United States, however, election rules often give the strongest voice to highly committed partisans. This matters because many citizens do not identify strongly with either major party. Gallup reported in 2026 that a record-high 45 percent of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025. Yet in many states, those voters are blocked from participating in the primaries that often decide who will hold office, since the general election is not really competitive.

Closed partisan primaries are one important way in which moderate and compromise-oriented voters can be effectively disenfranchised. When independents are excluded, candidates must first satisfy the party members who vote in low-turnout primaries. In safe districts, the primary may be the only competitive election that matters. Unite America Institute estimated that 22 states held closed presidential primaries or caucuses in 2024, leaving more than 27 million voters outside the two major parties unable to participate fully. The result is not simply unfair to those voters. It also sends a warning to candidates: working with the other side, taking a nuanced position, or appealing to the political center can invite punishment from a small but intense primary electorate.

Moderate voices can also be squeezed out by ballot-access rules and major-party efforts to keep competitors off the ballot. Third parties and independent candidates must navigate state-by-state filing rules, signature requirements, deadlines, and legal challenges that major-party candidates rarely face in the same way. State Court Report explains how complex presidential ballot-access rules became especially important in 2024, while Spotlight PA described the difficulty the Forward Party faced in trying to place candidates on Pennsylvania’s 2024 ballot. The point is not that every outsider should win or that every minor party represents the political center. However, the Forward Party did represent the center — it was trying to offer a viable alternative to the two main party candidates (Trump and first Biden, then Harris), all of whom were widely disliked. Voters should be able to consider credible alternatives without the rules being tilted to protect an entrenched duopoly.

There are several ways to reduce this kind of disenfranchisement without favoring any ideology or party. Open or all-candidate primaries can allow independents to help choose finalists. Ranked-choice voting can reduce the spoiler problem and make it safer for voters to support candidates they actually prefer. Fairer ballot-access rules can still require a reasonable showing of public support without using technicalities to eliminate competition. Independent redistricting can reduce the number of districts where the decisive election is a partisan primary. The American Bar Association’s Task Force for American Democracy has identified institutional reforms such as these as possible tools for reducing political extremism and improving democratic representation.

Opposing the disenfranchisement of moderate, compromise-oriented voters is not the same as demanding mushy centrism or suppressing principled disagreement. Democracies need strong advocates for many different views. What they also need are electoral rules that let bridge-builders compete, let independents participate, and let officeholders negotiate without facing automatic political retaliation. When compromise becomes politically suicidal, government becomes less able to solve hard problems. When compromise-oriented citizens have a meaningful voice, democratic conflict is more likely to produce workable decisions, rather than endless polarization and escalation.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.