For over a million Pennsylvania voters, primary election day isn’t an exciting civic event—it’s a locked door. The state’s closed primary system means that only registered Democrats and Republicans can vote in primaries, leaving over 1.3 million independent and third-party voters without a say in which candidates appear on the general election ballot.
Now, a bipartisan group of state lawmakers is pushing to change that. State Senators Dan Laughlin (R-49th) and Lisa Boscola (D-18th) have reintroduced legislation that would allow unaffiliated voters to choose a party’s primary to vote in, a system already used in many other states.
The proposal has reignited a long-standing debate: should Pennsylvania open its primaries to all voters, or is there value in keeping them closed?
The Case for Open Primaries: A Call for Inclusion
Supporters argue that open primaries would make Pennsylvania’s elections more democratic and reflective of the electorate. The numbers paint a clear picture—independent voters make up 14% of the state’s electorate, and their share is steadily growing. Yet, when primary season comes around, they’re sidelined.
“Many of these independent voters include groups like veterans, who are statistically more likely to register as independents, as well as young, Latino, and Asian-American voters,” Laughlin suggests.
Many argue that this exclusion leads to lower voter engagement overall. Studies from the Bipartisan Policy Centersuggest that states with open primaries see 5% higher voter turnout than those with closed systems. Proponents believe that allowing all voters to participate would not only boost turnout but also produce candidates who better reflect the general electorate, rather than those who appeal only to party loyalists.
There’s also a fairness argument. Since primaries are publicly funded, some see it as a case of taxation without representation—independent voters pay for elections they can’t vote in.
“Closed primaries represent a form of taxation without representation, as all taxpayers fund primary elections, but not all are permitted to participate,” said Laughlin.
And then there’s political polarization. Some believe open primaries reduce extremism by encouraging candidates to appeal to a broader electorate rather than catering to their party’s most loyal and ideologically driven voters.
The Case Against Open Primaries: Protecting Party Integrity
Not everyone is convinced that open primaries are the right solution. Opponents argue that primaries exist to allow political parties to choose their own candidates: Why should non-members get a say?
Another major concern is strategic voting—the idea that voters from one party could vote in the opposing party’s primary to influence their choice of candidate. While political scientists largely agree that large-scale strategic voting is rare, it remains a talking point for those defending the closed system.
Opponents also stress the question of voter confusion. While states that have switched generally see voters adapt quickly, critics argue that Pennsylvania’s large and complex electorate could face logistical challenges.
Lessons from Other States
Opponents of the bill also point to Alaska’s recent shift to a top-four primary system, where all candidates appear on one ballot, and the top four advance regardless of party.
The first major test of this system resulted in a Democrat, Mary Peltola, winning a congressional seat in a historically Republican district—something some conservatives saw as evidence that changing primary rules can have unintended consequences for parties.
In California and Washington, which have top-two primary systems where all candidates compete in the same primary regardless of party, studies suggest the format has contributed to more centrist candidates winning office.
A State in Transition
The debate over Pennsylvania’s primary system isn’t just a theoretical argument—it’s shaping the future of elections in the state. Similar bills have been introduced in recent years but failed to pass. However, the growing number of independent voters and bipartisan support from figures like former governors Tom Ridge (R) and Ed Rendell (D)suggest momentum is building.
The stakes are high. Primary elections often determine the real winners in many districts—particularly in solidly blue or red areas—meaning the exclusion of independent voters could have a significant impact on who holds office.
As lawmakers continue to push for change, the future of Pennsylvania’s elections may come down to one question: Is it more important to maintain party control over primaries, or to ensure every taxpayer-funded election is open to all?
The answer could reshape the state’s political landscape for decades to come.
