Oct 30, 2025

The Case for a National Primary Day

Robert G. Boatright

,

Caroline J. Tolbert

calendar cover

Oct 30, 2025

The Case for a National Primary Day

Robert G. Boatright

,

Caroline J. Tolbert

calendar cover

Oct 30, 2025

The Case for a National Primary Day

Robert G. Boatright

,

Caroline J. Tolbert

calendar cover

Oct 30, 2025

The Case for a National Primary Day

Robert G. Boatright

,

Caroline J. Tolbert

calendar cover

Oct 30, 2025

The Case for a National Primary Day

Robert G. Boatright

,

Caroline J. Tolbert

calendar cover

Oct 30, 2025

The Case for a National Primary Day

Robert G. Boatright

,

Caroline J. Tolbert

calendar cover

When America adopted primary elections, primaries were hailed as a way to give the public a say in choosing our leaders.  Today, fewer than twenty percent of Americans vote in primaries.  Primary voters are unrepresentative of the population, registered voters, and even the other members of their parties.  Turnout of younger people is extremely low. Turnout fluctuates wildly, depending on whether there is competition in high-profile races.  To improve primaries, we must increase the participation, representativeness, and consistency of primary voters.  The best way to do this is to hold all congressional and state primaries (though not necessarily presidential primaries) on the same day: a National Primary Day.

Consequences of a National Primary Day

Primaries for state and federal office are spread across eighteen dates from March to September.  If all primaries were held on the same day, people would know when to vote. A single-day primary would also attract more national media coverage.  People would know there is a primary even if they knew little about their local candidates. A national primary would also simplify mobilization efforts by parties or interest groups. An organization seeking to increase turnout by a particular demographic group or to highlight the salience of an issue could engage in a nationwide campaign or publicize lists of endorsed candidates. These effects would be felt the most among lower propensity voters, who tend to be younger, less wealthy, and less ideologically extreme than today’s primary voters. The primary electorate would look more like the American population.

There are many secondary effects from having a single-day primary as well. A single-day primary would limit the power of organized interests. The sequential nature of contemporary, low-turnout primaries gives undue power to groups that have sought to encourage extreme candidates and to selectively “primary” incumbents. An increase in turnout would make it more likely that primary victories would be a consequence of voter mobilization, not voter inattention. When primaries do yield unexpected results, we would understand these outcomes in the context of all of the year’s primaries, not as harbingers of what might take place in primaries later in the year.

A single-day primary could also improve lawmaking. Congress could adjourn for a few weeks before the national primary, allowing members to return to their districts to campaign. Incumbents facing opposition should not have to choose between campaigning and doing their jobs, and a closely divided Congress should not have to schedule votes around the idiosyncrasies of state primary dates to pass crucial legislation.

How A National Primary Day Might be Established

There are three ways a National Primary Day might be established. Congress could pass a law establishing a national primary, it could offer financial incentives for states to hold their primaries on a designated date, or states could agree among themselves to move toward adopting a shared primary date.  Even if not all states chose the same date, the effects of clustering are likely also to be beneficial.

At least for now, there is bipartisan support for the idea of a National Primary Day.  In a 2023 survey, seventy percent of U.S. adults nationwide expressed support for a one-day national primary. Unlike most other primary reform proposals, there were no differences in responses according to state primary type, level of political interest, or partisanship.

Making Primary Day Meaningful

Americans are more skeptical about democracy than at any point in our lifetimes. Some organizations have proposed ways to make Election Day more of a civic holiday, to make it an event we celebrate, not something we dread. Establishing a National Primary Day is an even better way to do this. General elections will remain a source of anxiety as long as the nation remains as polarized as it is today, but a National Primary Day can be a civic celebration. The parties will not (yet) be competing with each other. Some candidates will lose, but the parties will not. A National Primary Day can be a celebration of democracy.

Although the direct primary has not always lived up to its initial proponents’ hopes, by creating a National Primary Day we can still use primaries to improve our democracy.

When America adopted primary elections, primaries were hailed as a way to give the public a say in choosing our leaders.  Today, fewer than twenty percent of Americans vote in primaries.  Primary voters are unrepresentative of the population, registered voters, and even the other members of their parties.  Turnout of younger people is extremely low. Turnout fluctuates wildly, depending on whether there is competition in high-profile races.  To improve primaries, we must increase the participation, representativeness, and consistency of primary voters.  The best way to do this is to hold all congressional and state primaries (though not necessarily presidential primaries) on the same day: a National Primary Day.

Consequences of a National Primary Day

Primaries for state and federal office are spread across eighteen dates from March to September.  If all primaries were held on the same day, people would know when to vote. A single-day primary would also attract more national media coverage.  People would know there is a primary even if they knew little about their local candidates. A national primary would also simplify mobilization efforts by parties or interest groups. An organization seeking to increase turnout by a particular demographic group or to highlight the salience of an issue could engage in a nationwide campaign or publicize lists of endorsed candidates. These effects would be felt the most among lower propensity voters, who tend to be younger, less wealthy, and less ideologically extreme than today’s primary voters. The primary electorate would look more like the American population.

There are many secondary effects from having a single-day primary as well. A single-day primary would limit the power of organized interests. The sequential nature of contemporary, low-turnout primaries gives undue power to groups that have sought to encourage extreme candidates and to selectively “primary” incumbents. An increase in turnout would make it more likely that primary victories would be a consequence of voter mobilization, not voter inattention. When primaries do yield unexpected results, we would understand these outcomes in the context of all of the year’s primaries, not as harbingers of what might take place in primaries later in the year.

A single-day primary could also improve lawmaking. Congress could adjourn for a few weeks before the national primary, allowing members to return to their districts to campaign. Incumbents facing opposition should not have to choose between campaigning and doing their jobs, and a closely divided Congress should not have to schedule votes around the idiosyncrasies of state primary dates to pass crucial legislation.

How A National Primary Day Might be Established

There are three ways a National Primary Day might be established. Congress could pass a law establishing a national primary, it could offer financial incentives for states to hold their primaries on a designated date, or states could agree among themselves to move toward adopting a shared primary date.  Even if not all states chose the same date, the effects of clustering are likely also to be beneficial.

At least for now, there is bipartisan support for the idea of a National Primary Day.  In a 2023 survey, seventy percent of U.S. adults nationwide expressed support for a one-day national primary. Unlike most other primary reform proposals, there were no differences in responses according to state primary type, level of political interest, or partisanship.

Making Primary Day Meaningful

Americans are more skeptical about democracy than at any point in our lifetimes. Some organizations have proposed ways to make Election Day more of a civic holiday, to make it an event we celebrate, not something we dread. Establishing a National Primary Day is an even better way to do this. General elections will remain a source of anxiety as long as the nation remains as polarized as it is today, but a National Primary Day can be a civic celebration. The parties will not (yet) be competing with each other. Some candidates will lose, but the parties will not. A National Primary Day can be a celebration of democracy.

Although the direct primary has not always lived up to its initial proponents’ hopes, by creating a National Primary Day we can still use primaries to improve our democracy.

When America adopted primary elections, primaries were hailed as a way to give the public a say in choosing our leaders.  Today, fewer than twenty percent of Americans vote in primaries.  Primary voters are unrepresentative of the population, registered voters, and even the other members of their parties.  Turnout of younger people is extremely low. Turnout fluctuates wildly, depending on whether there is competition in high-profile races.  To improve primaries, we must increase the participation, representativeness, and consistency of primary voters.  The best way to do this is to hold all congressional and state primaries (though not necessarily presidential primaries) on the same day: a National Primary Day.

Consequences of a National Primary Day

Primaries for state and federal office are spread across eighteen dates from March to September.  If all primaries were held on the same day, people would know when to vote. A single-day primary would also attract more national media coverage.  People would know there is a primary even if they knew little about their local candidates. A national primary would also simplify mobilization efforts by parties or interest groups. An organization seeking to increase turnout by a particular demographic group or to highlight the salience of an issue could engage in a nationwide campaign or publicize lists of endorsed candidates. These effects would be felt the most among lower propensity voters, who tend to be younger, less wealthy, and less ideologically extreme than today’s primary voters. The primary electorate would look more like the American population.

There are many secondary effects from having a single-day primary as well. A single-day primary would limit the power of organized interests. The sequential nature of contemporary, low-turnout primaries gives undue power to groups that have sought to encourage extreme candidates and to selectively “primary” incumbents. An increase in turnout would make it more likely that primary victories would be a consequence of voter mobilization, not voter inattention. When primaries do yield unexpected results, we would understand these outcomes in the context of all of the year’s primaries, not as harbingers of what might take place in primaries later in the year.

A single-day primary could also improve lawmaking. Congress could adjourn for a few weeks before the national primary, allowing members to return to their districts to campaign. Incumbents facing opposition should not have to choose between campaigning and doing their jobs, and a closely divided Congress should not have to schedule votes around the idiosyncrasies of state primary dates to pass crucial legislation.

How A National Primary Day Might be Established

There are three ways a National Primary Day might be established. Congress could pass a law establishing a national primary, it could offer financial incentives for states to hold their primaries on a designated date, or states could agree among themselves to move toward adopting a shared primary date.  Even if not all states chose the same date, the effects of clustering are likely also to be beneficial.

At least for now, there is bipartisan support for the idea of a National Primary Day.  In a 2023 survey, seventy percent of U.S. adults nationwide expressed support for a one-day national primary. Unlike most other primary reform proposals, there were no differences in responses according to state primary type, level of political interest, or partisanship.

Making Primary Day Meaningful

Americans are more skeptical about democracy than at any point in our lifetimes. Some organizations have proposed ways to make Election Day more of a civic holiday, to make it an event we celebrate, not something we dread. Establishing a National Primary Day is an even better way to do this. General elections will remain a source of anxiety as long as the nation remains as polarized as it is today, but a National Primary Day can be a civic celebration. The parties will not (yet) be competing with each other. Some candidates will lose, but the parties will not. A National Primary Day can be a celebration of democracy.

Although the direct primary has not always lived up to its initial proponents’ hopes, by creating a National Primary Day we can still use primaries to improve our democracy.

When America adopted primary elections, primaries were hailed as a way to give the public a say in choosing our leaders.  Today, fewer than twenty percent of Americans vote in primaries.  Primary voters are unrepresentative of the population, registered voters, and even the other members of their parties.  Turnout of younger people is extremely low. Turnout fluctuates wildly, depending on whether there is competition in high-profile races.  To improve primaries, we must increase the participation, representativeness, and consistency of primary voters.  The best way to do this is to hold all congressional and state primaries (though not necessarily presidential primaries) on the same day: a National Primary Day.

Consequences of a National Primary Day

Primaries for state and federal office are spread across eighteen dates from March to September.  If all primaries were held on the same day, people would know when to vote. A single-day primary would also attract more national media coverage.  People would know there is a primary even if they knew little about their local candidates. A national primary would also simplify mobilization efforts by parties or interest groups. An organization seeking to increase turnout by a particular demographic group or to highlight the salience of an issue could engage in a nationwide campaign or publicize lists of endorsed candidates. These effects would be felt the most among lower propensity voters, who tend to be younger, less wealthy, and less ideologically extreme than today’s primary voters. The primary electorate would look more like the American population.

There are many secondary effects from having a single-day primary as well. A single-day primary would limit the power of organized interests. The sequential nature of contemporary, low-turnout primaries gives undue power to groups that have sought to encourage extreme candidates and to selectively “primary” incumbents. An increase in turnout would make it more likely that primary victories would be a consequence of voter mobilization, not voter inattention. When primaries do yield unexpected results, we would understand these outcomes in the context of all of the year’s primaries, not as harbingers of what might take place in primaries later in the year.

A single-day primary could also improve lawmaking. Congress could adjourn for a few weeks before the national primary, allowing members to return to their districts to campaign. Incumbents facing opposition should not have to choose between campaigning and doing their jobs, and a closely divided Congress should not have to schedule votes around the idiosyncrasies of state primary dates to pass crucial legislation.

How A National Primary Day Might be Established

There are three ways a National Primary Day might be established. Congress could pass a law establishing a national primary, it could offer financial incentives for states to hold their primaries on a designated date, or states could agree among themselves to move toward adopting a shared primary date.  Even if not all states chose the same date, the effects of clustering are likely also to be beneficial.

At least for now, there is bipartisan support for the idea of a National Primary Day.  In a 2023 survey, seventy percent of U.S. adults nationwide expressed support for a one-day national primary. Unlike most other primary reform proposals, there were no differences in responses according to state primary type, level of political interest, or partisanship.

Making Primary Day Meaningful

Americans are more skeptical about democracy than at any point in our lifetimes. Some organizations have proposed ways to make Election Day more of a civic holiday, to make it an event we celebrate, not something we dread. Establishing a National Primary Day is an even better way to do this. General elections will remain a source of anxiety as long as the nation remains as polarized as it is today, but a National Primary Day can be a civic celebration. The parties will not (yet) be competing with each other. Some candidates will lose, but the parties will not. A National Primary Day can be a celebration of democracy.

Although the direct primary has not always lived up to its initial proponents’ hopes, by creating a National Primary Day we can still use primaries to improve our democracy.

When America adopted primary elections, primaries were hailed as a way to give the public a say in choosing our leaders.  Today, fewer than twenty percent of Americans vote in primaries.  Primary voters are unrepresentative of the population, registered voters, and even the other members of their parties.  Turnout of younger people is extremely low. Turnout fluctuates wildly, depending on whether there is competition in high-profile races.  To improve primaries, we must increase the participation, representativeness, and consistency of primary voters.  The best way to do this is to hold all congressional and state primaries (though not necessarily presidential primaries) on the same day: a National Primary Day.

Consequences of a National Primary Day

Primaries for state and federal office are spread across eighteen dates from March to September.  If all primaries were held on the same day, people would know when to vote. A single-day primary would also attract more national media coverage.  People would know there is a primary even if they knew little about their local candidates. A national primary would also simplify mobilization efforts by parties or interest groups. An organization seeking to increase turnout by a particular demographic group or to highlight the salience of an issue could engage in a nationwide campaign or publicize lists of endorsed candidates. These effects would be felt the most among lower propensity voters, who tend to be younger, less wealthy, and less ideologically extreme than today’s primary voters. The primary electorate would look more like the American population.

There are many secondary effects from having a single-day primary as well. A single-day primary would limit the power of organized interests. The sequential nature of contemporary, low-turnout primaries gives undue power to groups that have sought to encourage extreme candidates and to selectively “primary” incumbents. An increase in turnout would make it more likely that primary victories would be a consequence of voter mobilization, not voter inattention. When primaries do yield unexpected results, we would understand these outcomes in the context of all of the year’s primaries, not as harbingers of what might take place in primaries later in the year.

A single-day primary could also improve lawmaking. Congress could adjourn for a few weeks before the national primary, allowing members to return to their districts to campaign. Incumbents facing opposition should not have to choose between campaigning and doing their jobs, and a closely divided Congress should not have to schedule votes around the idiosyncrasies of state primary dates to pass crucial legislation.

How A National Primary Day Might be Established

There are three ways a National Primary Day might be established. Congress could pass a law establishing a national primary, it could offer financial incentives for states to hold their primaries on a designated date, or states could agree among themselves to move toward adopting a shared primary date.  Even if not all states chose the same date, the effects of clustering are likely also to be beneficial.

At least for now, there is bipartisan support for the idea of a National Primary Day.  In a 2023 survey, seventy percent of U.S. adults nationwide expressed support for a one-day national primary. Unlike most other primary reform proposals, there were no differences in responses according to state primary type, level of political interest, or partisanship.

Making Primary Day Meaningful

Americans are more skeptical about democracy than at any point in our lifetimes. Some organizations have proposed ways to make Election Day more of a civic holiday, to make it an event we celebrate, not something we dread. Establishing a National Primary Day is an even better way to do this. General elections will remain a source of anxiety as long as the nation remains as polarized as it is today, but a National Primary Day can be a civic celebration. The parties will not (yet) be competing with each other. Some candidates will lose, but the parties will not. A National Primary Day can be a celebration of democracy.

Although the direct primary has not always lived up to its initial proponents’ hopes, by creating a National Primary Day we can still use primaries to improve our democracy.

When America adopted primary elections, primaries were hailed as a way to give the public a say in choosing our leaders.  Today, fewer than twenty percent of Americans vote in primaries.  Primary voters are unrepresentative of the population, registered voters, and even the other members of their parties.  Turnout of younger people is extremely low. Turnout fluctuates wildly, depending on whether there is competition in high-profile races.  To improve primaries, we must increase the participation, representativeness, and consistency of primary voters.  The best way to do this is to hold all congressional and state primaries (though not necessarily presidential primaries) on the same day: a National Primary Day.

Consequences of a National Primary Day

Primaries for state and federal office are spread across eighteen dates from March to September.  If all primaries were held on the same day, people would know when to vote. A single-day primary would also attract more national media coverage.  People would know there is a primary even if they knew little about their local candidates. A national primary would also simplify mobilization efforts by parties or interest groups. An organization seeking to increase turnout by a particular demographic group or to highlight the salience of an issue could engage in a nationwide campaign or publicize lists of endorsed candidates. These effects would be felt the most among lower propensity voters, who tend to be younger, less wealthy, and less ideologically extreme than today’s primary voters. The primary electorate would look more like the American population.

There are many secondary effects from having a single-day primary as well. A single-day primary would limit the power of organized interests. The sequential nature of contemporary, low-turnout primaries gives undue power to groups that have sought to encourage extreme candidates and to selectively “primary” incumbents. An increase in turnout would make it more likely that primary victories would be a consequence of voter mobilization, not voter inattention. When primaries do yield unexpected results, we would understand these outcomes in the context of all of the year’s primaries, not as harbingers of what might take place in primaries later in the year.

A single-day primary could also improve lawmaking. Congress could adjourn for a few weeks before the national primary, allowing members to return to their districts to campaign. Incumbents facing opposition should not have to choose between campaigning and doing their jobs, and a closely divided Congress should not have to schedule votes around the idiosyncrasies of state primary dates to pass crucial legislation.

How A National Primary Day Might be Established

There are three ways a National Primary Day might be established. Congress could pass a law establishing a national primary, it could offer financial incentives for states to hold their primaries on a designated date, or states could agree among themselves to move toward adopting a shared primary date.  Even if not all states chose the same date, the effects of clustering are likely also to be beneficial.

At least for now, there is bipartisan support for the idea of a National Primary Day.  In a 2023 survey, seventy percent of U.S. adults nationwide expressed support for a one-day national primary. Unlike most other primary reform proposals, there were no differences in responses according to state primary type, level of political interest, or partisanship.

Making Primary Day Meaningful

Americans are more skeptical about democracy than at any point in our lifetimes. Some organizations have proposed ways to make Election Day more of a civic holiday, to make it an event we celebrate, not something we dread. Establishing a National Primary Day is an even better way to do this. General elections will remain a source of anxiety as long as the nation remains as polarized as it is today, but a National Primary Day can be a civic celebration. The parties will not (yet) be competing with each other. Some candidates will lose, but the parties will not. A National Primary Day can be a celebration of democracy.

Although the direct primary has not always lived up to its initial proponents’ hopes, by creating a National Primary Day we can still use primaries to improve our democracy.

About the Author

Robert G. Boatright

Robert Boatright is a Professor of Political Science at Clark University and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. He is the author of several books on primary elections and campaign finance, including "Getting Primaried" (2013) and "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (2024). He is the coauthor, with Caroline Tolbert and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.

About the Author

Robert G. Boatright

Robert Boatright is a Professor of Political Science at Clark University and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. He is the author of several books on primary elections and campaign finance, including "Getting Primaried" (2013) and "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (2024). He is the coauthor, with Caroline Tolbert and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.

About the Author

Robert G. Boatright

Robert Boatright is a Professor of Political Science at Clark University and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. He is the author of several books on primary elections and campaign finance, including "Getting Primaried" (2013) and "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (2024). He is the coauthor, with Caroline Tolbert and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.

About the Author

Robert G. Boatright

Robert Boatright is a Professor of Political Science at Clark University and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. He is the author of several books on primary elections and campaign finance, including "Getting Primaried" (2013) and "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (2024). He is the coauthor, with Caroline Tolbert and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.

About the Author

Robert G. Boatright

Robert Boatright is a Professor of Political Science at Clark University and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. He is the author of several books on primary elections and campaign finance, including "Getting Primaried" (2013) and "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (2024). He is the coauthor, with Caroline Tolbert and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.

About the Author

Caroline J. Tolbert

Caroline Tolbert is a Distinguished University Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa where she teaches graduate seminars in research methods and American politics and undergrad courses in public policy, social media and politics, and voting and elections. She was named a 2021 Andrew Carnegie Scholar/Fellow for her research on voting and state election laws. She is the coauthor of "Accessible Elections: How State Governments Can Help Americans Vote" (2020) and "Choosing the Future: Technology and Opportunity in Communities" (2021). She is the coauthor, with Robert Boatright and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.

About the Author

Caroline J. Tolbert

Caroline Tolbert is a Distinguished University Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa where she teaches graduate seminars in research methods and American politics and undergrad courses in public policy, social media and politics, and voting and elections. She was named a 2021 Andrew Carnegie Scholar/Fellow for her research on voting and state election laws. She is the coauthor of "Accessible Elections: How State Governments Can Help Americans Vote" (2020) and "Choosing the Future: Technology and Opportunity in Communities" (2021). She is the coauthor, with Robert Boatright and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.

About the Author

Caroline J. Tolbert

Caroline Tolbert is a Distinguished University Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa where she teaches graduate seminars in research methods and American politics and undergrad courses in public policy, social media and politics, and voting and elections. She was named a 2021 Andrew Carnegie Scholar/Fellow for her research on voting and state election laws. She is the coauthor of "Accessible Elections: How State Governments Can Help Americans Vote" (2020) and "Choosing the Future: Technology and Opportunity in Communities" (2021). She is the coauthor, with Robert Boatright and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.

About the Author

Caroline J. Tolbert

Caroline Tolbert is a Distinguished University Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa where she teaches graduate seminars in research methods and American politics and undergrad courses in public policy, social media and politics, and voting and elections. She was named a 2021 Andrew Carnegie Scholar/Fellow for her research on voting and state election laws. She is the coauthor of "Accessible Elections: How State Governments Can Help Americans Vote" (2020) and "Choosing the Future: Technology and Opportunity in Communities" (2021). She is the coauthor, with Robert Boatright and Nathan Micatka, of "The Problem with Primary Voters" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2026), from which this article is adapted.