Connect with us

Politics

'Polarizing' way of picking party nominees targeted in ballot questions in these 6 states

Published

on

'Polarizing' way of picking party nominees targeted in ballot questions in these 6 states

A ballot initiative to implement open primary voting across six states is gaining momentum, according to advocates of the proposal who say it will eliminate “polarizing” and “extreme” candidates from making it onto the ballot, allowing a more diverse group of candidates to represent voters.

Proponents hope this year’s success is indicative of future changes to U.S. elections.

Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Montana and Nevada qualified for an open primary initiative for the 2024 ballot, Unite America – a philanthropic venture fund – found. Other states across the country already have an open primary system, including Alaska, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Virginia, among others.

Research from the Unite America Institute reveals that just 8% of voters elected 83% of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2022. In 2024, 7% have already elected 84%. Unite America attributed this “primary problem” to the polarization and gridlock hindering Congress and state legislatures from addressing key issues important to voters that often go unnoticed come election season.

Nick Troiano, executive director of Unite America, told Fox News Digital that an open primary system “would literally enfranchise millions of Americans closed out, and that includes independents.”

Advertisement

CHECK OUT THE LATEST FOX NEWS POWER RANKINGS IN THE 2024 ELECTION

Maryland Board of Elections poll workers pass by empty booths during the Maryland state primary election at a polling station in Annapolis, Maryland, on May 14, 2024. (Photo by Jim Watson / AFP)

In an open primary system, voters can choose which party’s primary to participate in, regardless of their own party affiliation. This allows registered voters, including independents, to vote in any party’s primary, promoting broader participation.

By contrast, a closed primary system requires voters to be registered with a specific party to vote in that party’s primary. This approach ensures that only party members can influence the selection of their candidates, often leading to more ideologically consistent nominees but potentially excluding independent voters from the process.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Advertisement

Signs directing voters are seen outside a polling place on March 5, 2024 in Mountain Brook, Alabama. (Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

“So this gives voters a lot more freedom to vote for whom they want, you know, regardless of party. And that’s the belief at the end of the day is that our election system should serve voters, not parties as private organizations,” Troiano told Fox News Digital.

Another advocate of the open primary system is former Colorado Congressman Ken Buck. Buck, who retired as a representative earlier this year to work behind-the-scenes on election reform projects, said that many American voters are currently frustrated with their presidential choices. 

He noted that recent election reforms in various states are primarily focused on Senate and gubernatorial races, rather than the presidential election. This discontent may create an opportunity for meaningful reform in the electoral system, he said.

TRUMP OPENS UP LARGEST BETTING LEAD SINCE DAYS AFTER BIDEN’S DROPOUT

Advertisement

“I VOTED” stickers are handed out. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

“AOC beat a member of leadership in the Democratic primary, and she did it again with a very small percentage,” Buck, who endorsed the open primary ballot inititative in his state, told Fox News Digital. “It’s like 12% of the overall registered voters in the in her district, voted for her in that primary, and then, because it’s a blue district, she becomes the member. That’s the example.”

Buck believes that these changes could lead to higher-quality candidates, as current primary systems often allow candidates to win with a small percentage of the vote—sometimes as low as 38%—due to a crowded field. He suggested that such candidates often lack broad support among voters and may prioritize social media appeal over addressing the pressing issues facing constituents. 

Buck and Troiano said so far, typically the party that is most in control of the state are opposed to the ballot measure.

Advertisement

“So in Nevada, the Democratic Party, and Idaho, it’s the Republican Party,” Troiano said. “But we make the case that this is good for voters today and is good for democracy.”

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

Published

on

California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.

The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.

The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.

Advertisement

Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.

“This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”

Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”

“The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending