(The Center Square) – The Keystone State is one of America’s most competitive politically. Pennsylvania routinely proves critical as a swing state in presidential elections, has one U.S. senator from each party, sends a diverse congressional delegation to the House of Representatives, and boasts a divided government at the state level. Yet this bastion of competitiveness is one of only 10 states still utilizing a highly restrictive closed primary election system. The birthplace of the American experiment in self-government must do better, and a new piece of legislation presents an opportunity to do so.
Pennsylvania’s closed primary election system, unfortunately, silences too many of its citizens. There are approximately 1.3 million partyless voters—almost 15% of registered voters—who remain shut out of the primary process. This outdated system harms voters, candidates, and parties alike – which has consequences for public policy in the commonwealth – and it’s time for it to go. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has an opportunity this session with the recently introduced Senate Bill 400.
This bill, sponsored by Republican State Senator Daniel Laughlin, would improve Pennsylvania’s primary system by allowing voters who are not affiliated with any party to vote in the primary of one party of their choice. Members of parties would still be required to vote in the primary of their chosen party, but independents who lean one way or another would now be allowed to make their voice heard in this critical stage of the electoral process. This system is preferred by approximately 77% of Pennsylvania registered voters.
Under current law, only people registered with a political party can participate in primary elections to determine candidates at the local, state, and federal levels. While this approach may carry some surface appeal—party members selecting their nominees makes intuitive sense—in practice, the system fails to deliver. By excluding unaffiliated voters, Pennsylvania’s closed primaries disrespect taxpayers, disadvantage political parties, and lead to less representative results.
Pennsylvania spends around $20 million in public money each year on primary elections. That money comes from all taxpayers, regardless of political affiliation, yet it funds a process that excludes a significant portion of the state’s voters. Asking Pennsylvanians to finance elections that deny so many of them a voice is inherently unfair.
Currently, in districts where one party is particularly dominant, the primary elections serve as the decisive contest. In a closed primary, candidates are incentivized to appeal to their partisan base, a narrow segment of which will decide the election. Including independent voters in the primary process requires candidates to appeal to a broader audience to succeed. This broader segment of the population will then be more representative of the local population as a whole. This results in nominees who better reflect their constituencies and produces primaries with higher turnout, as seen in the experiences of several other states.
Parties also lose potential advantages in a closed primary system. Pennsylvania hosts many competitive races, where independent voters often prove decisive. Including these voters in the primary process increases their exposure to the candidates and party platforms, making them more likely to vote. If their preferred candidate from the primary advances to the general election, they are certainly more likely to turn out and support that candidate. Narrowly appealing nominees are liabilities in a competitive general election. Opening primaries to independents brings the competition for this crucial voting bloc into the nomination stage, ultimately to the benefit of the parties. Over time, if independent voters find value in participating in a party’s primary, they may be more likely to affiliate with that party permanently.
Opening Pennsylvania’s primaries is about making our elections fairer, more inclusive, and more reflective of the voters who fund and live under the decisions they produce. Allowing independents to participate would strengthen democratic legitimacy, improve candidate quality, and give millions of Pennsylvanians a meaningful voice in choosing their representatives.
