Introduction

Problem: Under Pennsylvania’s current system, a candidate can win their primary election with only a small fraction of the vote. This leaves the majority of voters feeling dissatisfied with their party’s nominee on the November general election ballot.

Historically, candidates who fail to win at least 50% of the vote in their primary election go on to lose in the general election.

Solution: We sponsored legislation to create a primary runoff election system in Pennsylvania where candidates must compete for and win the support of a majority of their party’s voters. The proposal requires a candidate to earn at least 50% of the vote to win their party’s nomination.

Primary runoff elections are a good government measure that:

Give voters more opportunity to have their voice heard.
Reward candidates who can work collaboratively and solve problems for Pennsylvanians.
Present voters with better choices on the ballot.
Prevent voters from being constantly stuck with a candidate they overwhelmingly oppose.
Produce stronger, high-quality candidates with broad support.

Bottom Line: Primary runoff elections result in stronger candidates with widespread appeal and majority support, which is better for Pennsylvania.

Summary

Our proposal would create a primary runoff election system in Pennsylvania. It would require candidates to win at least 50% of their party’s support in the primary election before they can be declared the winner and advance to compete in the November general election.

If no candidate can earn at least 50% of the vote in the primary election, then a second or “runoff” election would be held between the top two vote getters. The candidate with the most votes in the runoff election wins and goes on to compete in the general election.

Our proposal would only apply to statewide offices (governor, lieutenant governor, and row offices such as Attorney General, Treasurer, and Auditor General), federal offices (U.S. Senate and Congress), and the state legislature. It does not impact county government, municipal government, or school districts.

Statistics

Nearly every candidate who has run a statewide campaign in an open race for Governor or U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania in the last 50 years LOST in the November general election if they failed to win at least 50% of their party’s vote in the primary election.

Examples from other states with primary runoff elections show that they benefit strong grassroots candidates:

Ted Cruz would not be a U.S. senator had it not been for primary runoff elections.
- In 2012, Cruz was running against establishment-favorite Lt. Gov David Dewhurst. Dewhurst heavily outspent Cruz in the race.
- Dewhurst won the initial primary election with 45% of the vote; Cruz got 34%; seven other candidates combined for the remaining 21%.
- In the runoff, Cruz won with 57% — demonstrating that grassroots campaigns can and have prevailed in runoffs against establishment politicians.
South Carolina Congressman Jim DeMint defeated the frontrunner, former Governor David Beasley, in a primary runoff election in 2004.
- In the initial primary election, Beasley won 37% of the vote; DeMint got 26%; Thomas Ravanel 25%; and the rest of the candidates combined for the remaining 11%.
- Jim DeMint won the runoff 59% to Beasley’s 41% and then won the US Senate seat in November.

Currently, ten states require a runoff in primary elections if candidates do not win with a certain required threshold for victory:

Myth vs Fact

Myth: Ranked choice voting and primary runoff elections are the same.

Fact: Ranked choice voting and primary runoff elections are NOT the same – they are completely different systems.

Ranked Choice Voting: Allows voters to rank their top candidates in descending order. If no candidate earns enough votes to decidedly win, then some votes are automatically redistributed. Specifically, if a voter ranked a losing candidate first on their ballot, then their vote is now automatically cast for the second-choice candidate on their ballot. Sens. Aument and Farry OPPOSE ranked choice voting.

Primary Runoff Elections: A runoff election would be held if a majority of voters don’t agree on a candidate in the initial primary election. A candidate must earn at least 50% of the vote in the initial primary election. If they do, then they are declared the winner and move on to compete in the general election in November. If they don’t, then a second or “runoff” election is held between the top two candidates. The candidate with the most votes in the runoff election wins.

Primary runoff elections result in stronger candidates with broad appeal and majority support, which is better for Pennsylvania.

Myth: Primary runoff elections suppress grassroots efforts and give an unfair advantage to establishment politicians and political elites.

Fact: Primary runoff elections do not give an advantage to incumbents or those with more money. They only give an advantage to candidates who have the support of a majority of their party’s voters.

Myth: Using a primary runoff election system will allow the results to be influenced by outside or “dark” money from special interests.

Fact: While money is certainly still an important factor in elections, widespread use of the internet and social networking sites has steadily decreased the overall influence of money in elections by allowing prospective candidates to have direct access to voters for free through social media platforms.

For example, Doug Mastriano was able to easily win the votes of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians when he ran for governor in 2022. He was able to do this largely by connecting with voters through Facebook. His primary election campaign raised less money than any other candidate’s campaign, but he was still able to win by speaking directly with voters on his social media profiles.

Candidates will need to campaign and spend money more strategically to win 50% in a primary or runoff election; this is the very same skillset needed to successfully govern and solve problems for the people of Pennsylvania.

Myth: A second primary election will increase voter fatigue.

Fact: Voter fatigue increases when candidates who win with a small fraction of their party’s support continue to advance to general elections only to lose. If a candidate can only earn 20-30% of their party’s support for nomination, that leaves the remaining 70-80% of voters feeling dissatisfied, frustrated, and unheard.

Voters will become more motivated when they feel their voice is heard. Primary runoff elections will give voters the opportunity to play a greater role in choosing their party’s candidate, and give candidates an opportunity to connect to voters that did not originally support them. They will help us reach consensus and put forth the best possible candidate so voters don’t feel continually dissatisfied with the results. Stronger candidates with widespread appeal and majority support are better for Pennsylvania.

Myth: Primary runoff elections disenfranchise voters.

Fact: Primary runoff elections actually give voters more opportunities to choose their preferred candidate to win their party’s nomination. This system allows voters to first narrow down the field of candidates to two and then vote again between those top two candidates, which strengthens voters’ voice. This is how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

Myth: Primary runoff elections unfairly benefit Democrats.

Fact: Primary runoff elections don’t benefit one party over another. States that use a runoff system in general elections are far more likely to see that system benefit one party over the other. However, in primary elections, candidates from the same political party compete against each other to win their party’s nomination. Therefore, implementing runoffs in only primary elections cannot benefit one party over another.

Further, the overwhelming majority of states that already use a primary runoff election system are predominantly Republican states (see map above).

Myth: Primary runoff elections limit options for voters by decreasing the number of candidates that can run.

Fact: Primary runoff elections place no limit on the number of candidates who can run in the initial primary election. However, should none of those candidates receive at least 50% of the vote in that first primary election, then a second or “runoff” election will be held between the top two candidates. The winner of the runoff will advance to the general election in November.

Myth: A second primary election will only attract the most extreme partisan voters, leaving Pennsylvanians with only far right and far left candidates to choose between on the November ballot.

Fact: Primary runoff elections require candidates to earn the support of a majority of their party’s voters to be successful. To do this, they must attract support from a broader base within their party.

News

May 30, 2023: Primary Runoff Elections Produce Better Candidates and PA Needs That

May 24, 2023: Aument, Farry to Introduce Primary Runoff Bill

Feedback

Join the discussion!

To effectively build a fair, secure, and reliable election system in Pennsylvania, I will need the continued engagement of my constituents and local leaders. An ongoing dialogue between lawmakers and those they represent is absolutely critical to succeed.

As such, please fill out my Voice Your Concerns Form with any further questions, thoughts, or concerns you may have. I firmly believe that an open and productive conversation is necessary as we seek to build a stronger Pennsylvania, together.

Telephone Town Hall to Discuss Primary Runoff Elections

In June 2023, I hosted a telephone town hall event with over 3,200 constituents to discuss the pros and cons of creating a primary runoff election system in Pennsylvania. Participants had the opportunity to ask me questions directly and share their thoughts on this policy and other state-related issues that are important to them.

You can watch video footage of the entire event and view the results of poll questions asked during the call here. Or simply view my opening remarks from the event here: