Executive Summary
This report examines whether Open, All-Candidate Primaries (referred to throughout as “all-candidate primaries”) produce measurable improvements in citizens’ quality of life. While most research on primary reform focuses on immediate political effects like candidate positioning or legislative voting patterns, this study takes the logical next step by analyzing whether these electoral changes translate into tangible societal benefits.
Using rigorous statistical methods to analyze state-level data across multiple decades, the study examines 14 outcome measures spanning economics, health, education, crime, environment, and housing. The quantitative analysis employs two-way fixed effects regression models that control for permanent state differences, national trends, partisan control, economic conditions, and demographic factors to isolate the relationship between primary type and subsequent outcomes.
The statistical analysis reveals a consistent pattern of improvement across most measured domains following all-candidate primary implementation. Nine of the 14 outcome variables show statistically significant improvements associated with all-candidate primaries, while none show significant deterioration:
- Economic Outcomes: All-candidate primary states have higher per capita income, more new business formation, and less income inequality. There is some evidence that they also experience lower unemployment and poverty rates.
- Educational Achievement: All-candidate primary states have significantly higher 4th grade scores, but show no difference in math scores or graduation rates.
- Health Outcomes: Residents in all-candidate primary states have a higher life expectancy, which increases by 10 months.
- Public Safety: The murder rate is lower in all-candidate primary states, while vehicle theft rates are indistinguishable.
- Housing: All-candidate primary states are associated with slightly less homelessness.
We also conduct a series of case studies on policymaking in all-candidate primary states to illustrate potential pathways through which all-candidate primaries might causally improve governance and outcomes. We show how all-candidate primaries incentivize legislators to build more representative and cross-partisan coalitions; incentivize legislators in safe seats to demonstrate effectiveness to independent and cross-party voters; and promote pragmatic problem-solving even when it conflicts with party orthodoxy.
The consistency of positive effects across diverse outcome domains — combined with legislators’ explicit testimony that reforms enabled their actions — provides compelling evidence that electoral institutions meaningfully shape policy and quality of life.
At minimum, these findings definitively refute critics who claim that weakening party control over nominations damages governance and harms citizens. The preponderance of evidence indicates that by changing electoral incentives, all-candidate primaries likely enable more pragmatic, effective governance that produces measurable improvements in citizens’ lives — the ultimate purpose of political institutions.
