On average, just 13% of voters effectively elect their state house of representatives. How do we increase meaningful voter participation?
It is an unfortunate reality that not all votes hold equal weight in determining election outcomes. Most districts at both the federal and state levels are “safe” for one party or the other, meaning the low-turnout dominant party’s primary effectively determines the winner. As a result, even though general election turnout can be high, the number of votes that actually impact the outcome is quite low. As two leading elections scholars note:
“One minimal requirement of democracy is that there is enough electoral competition that incumbents face a real possibility of being defeated at the polls. If the general elections in a state or locality dominated by one party are rarely in doubt, then these elections fail to contribute meaningfully to democratic accountability.”
In many instances, the primary election of a district’s dominant party provides the only opportunity for meaningful participation. And in many other instances, neither the primary nor the general election are competitive, and democratic accountability is simply absent.
The Unite America Institute developed a metric to measure the combination of both voter participation and electoral competition in state legislative elections. Building on the congressional “Primary Problem” — in which we found that just 8% of voting age Americans effectively elected 87% of the U.S. House in partisan primaries in 2024 — the “Meaningful Vote Percentage” (MVP)” incorporates measures of competition and turnout to describe the extent of the state legislative Primary Problem. This explainer provides a brief methodological overview of MVP, summarizes the data across all 50 states from 2018-2022, describes the components that most influence MVP, and comments on how states can most improve their scores.
Each state’s MVP is a single number that represents the share of eligible voters in a state who cast “meaningful votes” in decisive elections for the lower chamber of the state legislature.1 Decisive elections are contests in which outcomes are not simply the result of entrenched partisanship, but, rather, campaigns, candidates, and policy positions matter. This election can be the primary, the general, or in some cases, no election is decisive.
The total number of meaningful votes cast in a state’s decisive elections divided by the state’s voting eligible population equals its meaningful vote percentage. (See the full methodology here).
The MVP dataset consists of all lower chamber state legislative elections held between 2018 and 2022. The vast majority of states (46) hold these elections every two years in even years, meaning the dataset includes three election cycles worth of data (2018, 2020, 2022).6
In 2022, the average MVP was just 12.6% (and the median was 10.7%). In other words, on average, about one-eighth of eligible voters in each state elect the state’s entire lower legislative chamber. However, there is considerable variance across states. The table below displays the states with the top five and bottom five MVPs in their last election cycle. (To see the full data for 2022 as well as 2020 and 2018, click here.)
As described in the methodological overview above, in each district, the election is effectively decided in i) the general election, ii) the dominant party’s primary election, or iii) in neither election (due to a lack of competition).
Nationally, in each state’s last legislative election cycle, a staggering 60% of the 5,088 lower chamber seats were effectively decided before any voters cast a ballot because both the primary and the general election lacked real competition. Just 13% of seats were decided in general elections, where turnout is highest, and only 27% were decided in primaries.
The map below displays the MVP for each state in its last election cycle. It also shows the share of districts that were decided in each election type. (To see the full data for 2022 as well as 2020 and 2018, click here.) Hover over each state to see its results!
While turnout in both the primary and general elections is a key component of MVP, it is the rate of competition (in both general elections and primaries) that sets the top performing states apart. Based on our methodology, 77.5% of state house general elections in Alaska, the MVP frontrunner, were decisive last cycle, meaning that in most districts the highest turnout election was decisive. In Nebraska, 55.1% of general elections were decisive. While many of the other top performing states had much lower rates of decisive general elections — such as Wyoming (6.5%) and Michigan (18.2%) — they have high rates of decisive primary elections (over 50% of all seats), meaning that at least some voters had a meaningful say in the outcome.
On the other hand, the states at the very bottom of the list lack competition in both general and primary elections. In Tennessee, for example, 74% of seats in the lower chamber lacked competition in both elections, meaning that voters in nearly three-quarters of the state had no say in who represents them. Further, just 4% of all seats in Tennessee were decided in the general election. The story is similar in the other states at the bottom of the list: Around two-third to three-quarters of all seats lacked competition entirely, and less than 10% were decided in the general election.
Participation is also important, but high turnout alone does not necessarily mean a state will have a high MVP. Competition is needed, too. For example, the top three states in lower chamber general election turnout in 2022 — Minnesota, Maine, and Wisconsin — were 17th, 18th, and 34th, respectively, in MVP. In each state, fewer than 20% of seats were decided in the high turnout general election. Of the top ten states in general election turnout, just three are also in the top ten in MVP.
Primary election turnout actually has a larger impact on MVP than general election turnout. Even though turnout is much lower in primaries than general elections, the larger number of decisive primaries leads to primary turnout having a greater impact on MVP. In other words, the apparent link between primary turnout and MVP is actually more about the intersection of primary election competition and turnout than simply turnout alone. For example, two of the top five states in MVP have (comparatively) high primary turnout (over 25%) and a high rate of decisive primary elections (over 55%). Despite this, these states (and all others) could most significantly increase their MVPs by creating more general election competition since turnout is much higher in general elections than primaries.
It goes without saying that states can increase their MVPs by creating more competition and encouraging greater participation in both primary and general elections. Further, our analysis shows that states should focus on increasing competition first and foremost — particularly in general elections — and participation secondarily. But, what, exactly, should states do to achieve these goals?
There are a host of potential election reforms that states could implement, but those that will be most impactful on MVP will increase both competition and turnout. Five states — Alaska, California, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington — have shown that they can make this impact by abolishing partisan primaries and replacing them with all-candidate primaries. In their last elections, the average MVP in the five all-candidate primary states was 25.8%. This is 2.3 times higher than the average MVP in the 45 states with partisan primaries (11.2%). Further, the three states with the highest MVPs (Alaska, Nebraska, Louisiana) all have all-candidate primaries, while all five all-candidate primary states are among the top eight in MVP.
Alaska implemented all-candidate primaries in 2022, making it the only state of the five that implemented the reform during the timeframe of our dataset (2018-2022). This allows for a before-and-after comparison of the state’s MVP, and the results are stark: Alaska’s MVP increased from 21.9% in 2020 to 34.7% in 2022 — a 58% increase.
While all-candidate primaries also boost turnout, the main reason they lead to higher MVPs is that they introduce same-party competition in general elections, which boosts general election competition. In the all-candidate primary states, an average of 42.2% of seats were decided in the general election. This is nearly 3.5 times higher than the 12% average of the 45 partisan primary states. Similarly, on average, just 36.6% of seats in all-candidate primary states lacked competition in both the general and primary elections, while the average in partisan primary states was over 60%.
In summary, the status quo of partisan primaries and minimal general election competition leads to few voters casting meaningful votes, even if they do participate at high rates in general elections. All-candidate primaries can increase general election competition substantially — even without any changes to the ideological makeup of districts — by creating pathways for same-party competition in the general elections.
Other reforms could also have a positive impact. For example, eliminating partisan gerrymandering through independent redistricting commissions can lead to more competitive districts. This can increase a state’s MVP by creating opportunities for more general election voters to participate in decisive contests. However, due to the geographic self-sorting of the electorate and other geographic challenges, there are limits to how many competitive districts can be drawn in many states. Vote by mail can increase voter turnout in both primary and general elections by making voting more accessible. This can lead to a higher MVP by increasing the number of votes cast in already-competitive primary and general elections, but its impact is limited as the reform does not increase competition.
All-candidate primaries are the most impactful reform because they significantly boost general election competition, while also increasing turnout (particularly in the primary). However, the truth is that the most significant impact would likely come from combining these reforms (and potentially others): Independent redistricting can increase the number of competitive districts, all-candidate primaries can increase competition in safe districts through same-party general elections, and vote by mail can increase turnout in both primary and general elections. There is no single silver bullet that gives voters a more meaningful say in elections, but our analysis shows that states would do well to embrace reform in order to put voters first.
1 The only exception is New Hampshire. Given the complicated structure of their lower chamber, we used the New Hampshire State Senate instead. Also, Nebraska has a unicameral state legislature, so there is no higher or lower chamber.
2 A few highly respected political scientists who reviewed our methodology and data encouraged us to use the same standard in primary and general elections (or, more precisely, elections with or without intraparty competition). We took this feedback seriously, and constructed an alternative metric using a standard 10-percentage point vote margin in the primaries, as well as general elections. Nevertheless, we ultimately stuck with the distinct standards for primaries and general elections because elections with intraparty competition are fundamentally less stable and predictable than a general election between a Democrat and a Republican. Accordingly incumbents feel much more threatened by, for instance, a 20-percentage point vote margin in the primary than they do in the general. That said, other than suggesting that an even smaller share of Americans cast meaningful votes, this alternative approach of using the same standard in primaries and general elections does not fundamentally change the analysis that follows.
3 A Top-Two primary is decisive if 3 or more candidates compete. Under Top-Four (the Alaska model), five candidates must run in the primary for it to be decisive. In each case, at least one candidate is eliminated, which is what makes these elections competitive or “decisive.”
4 This includes data from each state’s most recent state house election.
5 If we apply the alternative standard discussed in footnote 2 (using a 10-percentage point margin in both the primary and general), then all-candidate primary states (14.3%) outperform partisan primary states (8.3%) by 73% in MVP.
6 The other four states — Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia — hold their state legislative elections in odd years. New Jersey and Virginia elect the members of their lower chambers to two-year terms, meaning those states have two election cycles worth of data in our dataset (2019, 2021). Louisiana and Mississippi, on the other hand, elect their lower chamber representatives to four-year terms, so we only have one election cycle of data for these states (2019). Throughout this explainer, all references to data from 2022 refer to each state’s most recent election (which was not held in 2022 in four states).
