The R Street Institute released an analysis on Mar. 26 discussing the current state of how candidates are selected for public office in the United States, arguing that the system is stuck between two different approaches and is not serving voters or parties effectively.
The issue matters because it affects both the quality of candidates and the overall functioning of American democracy. The report highlights that neither party-driven nor fully democratized systems are being used to their full potential, resulting in a process with many drawbacks and few advantages.
According to the R Street Institute, early American political parties selected their own candidates through methods such as congressional caucuses and delegate conventions. This approach allowed parties to maintain coherent platforms but also led to issues like political bossism. The Progressive movement then pushed for more democratic reforms, leading to primary elections where voters have greater influence over candidate selection. However, this shift has weakened party coherence and resulted in platforms that “mean less,” with candidates now owing their nominations primarily to primary voters rather than any organized party structure.
The institute notes that today’s system combines weaknesses from both models: parties are weak while primaries often exclude large numbers of voters due to closed processes or low turnout. The analysis states that “an estimated 90 percent of U.S. House seats and 80 percent of U.S. Senate races will lack a competitive general election in the upcoming 2026 midterms,” making primaries decisive yet unrepresentative.
To address these problems, R Street suggests two possible paths: further democratizing party processes by opening primaries and lowering barriers for ballot access; or restoring privatization by allowing parties full control over their candidate selection without taxpayer funding while standardizing ballot access rules for all candidates regardless of affiliation.
The institute concludes that maintaining the status quo risks perpetuating weak parties without producing truly representative candidates: “There are different directions we can go, but the worst thing we could do is nothing at all.”
