Research shows that when more voters take part in the elections that actually decide who wins, elected leaders have to build broader coalitions and answer to more of the public. The studies below examine how primary election systems affect competition, turnout, representation, and accountability. They are the evidence behind Question 3.

Electoral competition and accountability

Sinclair, O’Grady, Miller & Murphy, “Participation and Competition in Top-Two Elections: Trade-Offs in Election Reform.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2026. | Finds that top-two increases meaningful competition in safe districts and shifts the decisive election from low-turnout partisan primaries to higher-turnout general elections. Winners must secure support from substantially larger shares of the electorate, strengthening accountability without favoring any ideological faction. In top-two general elections in safe districts, incumbents must compete before larger electorates, and even poorly resourced candidates can mount strong challenges.

Hall, “State Elections, Policy Choices, and Accountability.” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, 2021. | Finds that legislators in more competitive electoral environments are more responsive to voter concerns and show more accountability.

Barton, “California’s Top-Two Primary: The Effects on Electoral Politics and Governance.” Unite America Institute, 2023. | Finds that California’s move to top-two was associated with higher voter turnout and less partisan behavior among elected officials.

Participation and representation

Donovan, Micatka & Tolbert, “Can Nonpartisan Primaries Boost Turnout and Lessen Demographic Disparities?” PLOS One, 2025. | Finds that nonpartisan primary systems are associated with higher turnout in congressional primaries and smaller demographic gaps in participation, making primary electorates more representative.

Micatka, Tolbert & Boatright, “All Candidate Primaries, Open Primaries, and Voter Turnout.” Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, 2024. | Finds that voters in top-two states are more likely to vote in congressional primaries than voters in partisan-primary states. Partisans and especially independents participate at higher rates.

Ferrer et al., “The Effect of Open Primaries on Turnout and Representation.” Bipartisan Policy Center, 2024. | Finds that partisan primary voters are less representative and less diverse than general-election voters, and that more open primary systems are associated with higher and more diverse turnout.

Macomber, “Nonpartisan Primaries Increase Primary Turnout.” Unite America Institute, 2024. | Finds that primary turnout rises under nonpartisan primaries.

Kamarck & Podkul, “The 2018 Primaries Project: The Demographics of Primary Voters.” Brookings Institution, 2018. | Finds that partisan primary electorates are both more ideological and less diverse, including by race, than general-election electorates.

Money in politics

Opinion Diagnostics for the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, “Does All-Party Primary Reform Increase the Power of Money in Politics?” 2026. | Analysis of roughly 13,400 candidacies in contested California and Washington races, 2000–2024, before and after top-two. Finds that a clear fundraising lead wins fewer races than it did under partisan primaries, the top fundraiser wins less often, and winning did not become more expensive.

Broad participation and democratic stability

Bueno de Mesquita & Smith, The Dictator’s Handbook. PublicAffairs, 2011. | Argues that the key difference between democratic and authoritarian systems is the size of the coalition leaders must satisfy to stay in power. When leaders depend on large electorates, they must provide broad public goods and protect political freedoms; when they rely on small coalitions, they can hold power through patronage and benefits for a narrow set of loyal supporters. Expanding the number of voters who take part in decisive elections strengthens accountability and makes strongman politics harder to sustain.

What the skeptics find

Drutman, “What We Know About Congressional Primaries and Congressional Primary Reform.” New America. | A skeptical review, often cited by opponents of Question 3. It finds that same-party general elections “do occur about one-sixth of the time, and such elections do tend to be less ideologically polarized” — and argues top-two has fallen short mainly because it produces too few of them. It also notes that reform increased candidate fundraising in California; see our analysis of why more money raised did not mean money became more powerful.

Related: How Question 3 works · Will Question 3 increase turnout? · Will this lead to younger, more diverse leadership?

Make your representative work for your vote. Vote YES on Question 3 — sign up to help.