The Pa. voting system is primed to produce candidates like Doug Mastriano

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has forced many Pennsylvanians’ eyes to turn to the upcoming governor’s race in November. Because without a federal protection of abortion rights, it is now up to individual states to set the rules their residents will follow.

The unavoidable truth is that whoever is in Harrisburg will have an outsized impact on Pennsylvanians’ day-to-day lives going forward. And whoever the commonwealth elects as its senator could have an enormous impact on national politics.

So let’s take a look at who Pennsylvanians have nominated to run the races in November.

For anyone who has observed the current state of American politics, the outcome of Pennsylvania’s primary elections in May was no surprise. In a diverse field of candidates in nearly every race of national note, it was those on the political extremes who won nominations. This “primary problem,” in which candidates with base appeal in low turnout elections determine the course of politics for everyone, is a national phenomenon. But Pennsylvania is a particularly notable example of it — in its severity but also in its potential for solutions.

Just look, for instance, at all the nominees who won big races with just plurality support in their primaries.

“There is a way to change this downward spiral of polarization.”

On the Republican side, State Sen. Doug Mastriano won his party’s primary for governor with only 44% of the vote. He was a leading voice in the effort to overturn the 2020 election results and has admitted to being present at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Television personality Mehmet Oz and former hedge fund CEO David McCormick were so neck and neck that they required a recount following the GOP primary for Senate, after both tried to out-MAGA each other. And while those two waged war over who was the most extreme candidate, little-known political commentator Kathy Barnette — a legitimate and proven MAGA acolyte — surged in the polls as the election approached. The result of all three arguing over who had the narrowest appeal to the party base? Oz captured the nomination with less than a third of Republican ballots cast.

One might think that Democrats would have nominated a surefire favorite for the general election, one with broad appeal. But Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, an unapologetic progressive and passionate fighter for causes popular on the left, won a landslide victory over second-place finisher U.S. Rep. Conor Lamb in the Senate primary.

For those interested in moving away from the extremes and giving voice to those who prefer compromise to conflict, there is a way to change this downward spiral of polarization. In Pennsylvania, that at least means changing some restrictions on primaries.

Different states run primaries differently. Pennsylvania has a “closed” primary process, which essentially bars everyone but registered Democrats and registered Republicans from having a say. On primary day, Democrats can only vote for Democratic candidates, and the same goes for Republicans. Independent voters are not invited.

The problem with closed primaries is that they empower the extremes and incentivize candidates to appeal to the combative instincts of the most partisan voters. There are a few reasons for this. Most congressional districts are uncompetitive in the general election, meaning the winner’s constituency is likely to be their primary voters, not the general electorate. These races aren’t on many people’s radars, so the majority of voters (not strong partisans, lacking rigid ideologies) often have little incentive to show up. But divisive characters can attract a small but strong band of enthusiastic voters, who just need to achieve a plurality — not a consensus — to hand the primary to their candidate.

These conditions don’t affect each and every election the same way. But they’re common enough to help define this country’s politics, Pennsylvania’s included.

A realistic solution, the Ballot PA initiative, would allow Pennsylvania’s 1.1 million unaffiliated and independent voters the opportunity to vote in the primary of their choice. Including independent voters in primary elections could have a significant impact. If candidates know they have to appeal for votes closer to the middle, that discourages them from playing to the fringes.

Opening up the commonwealth’s primaries is supported by 75% of Pennsylvanians and was approved by the Pennsylvania Senate 42-8 in June 2019, before the bill stalled at the onset of the pandemic. This effort would help solve the primary problem, close the ideological divide, and encourage candidates to talk about important issues, rather than simply try to “out-extreme” one another.

If successful, Pennsylvania would join Maine in opening primaries to independent voters this year, leaving just eight states with completely closed primaries. Other solutions are working elsewhere. California and Washington, for example, use a top-two nonpartisan primary in which all voters can pick their favorite candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, and the top two vote-getters compete against each other in the general election — even if they belong to the same party.

Certainly, the outcomes of some of Pennsylvania’s primary elections would have been different had independents been given such a voice. Providing them one would be an improvement over the current system and help reduce the unbridled polarization that has consumed our nation’s politics.

Jason Altmire, a Democrat, represented Pennsylvania in Congress from 2007-2013. He is a board member of Unite America, a nonpartisan election reform organization.