Barbara Smith Warner, executive director at National Vote at Home Institute, has an article, “Mail ballots are not a threat to democracy, but an invitation to it” at The Hill. Warner’s article makes a compelling case for increasing voting by mail.

As Warner notes in one of her introductory paragraphs, “But whether you call it vote by mail, absentee voting or vote at home, it’s not new, risky or partisan. In fact, mail ballots are one of the most time-tested, secure and bipartisan voting methods in America. And instead of being a threat to democracy, mail ballots might just be the solution to the problem of American democracy becoming a mere spectator sport, where an aging, shrinking number of voters determine most of our electoral outcomes.”

You won’t find a better defense of voting by mail than Warner’s article, and every Democrat engaged in the discussion about voting by mail ought to give it a sober read. But drilling down a bit, I was struck by how her argument relates to political primaries.

As Warner writes, ” In the 2024 presidential election, more than one-third of America’s eligible citizens — over 80 million — didn’t vote at all…It’s far worse in primaries, which often determine who actually takes power in Congress and state governments. In the 2024 primary elections, turnout was just 18.5 percent of eligible citizens, less than one out of five. And the median age of these voters was 65. Add in the thousands of local contests for mayor, city council, school boards and more, where turnout is often in the single digits, and the picture is even bleaker.”

Think about that. Less than one out of five eligible voters cast ballots in the primaries, and the median age of those who voted in primaries was 65. Such stats raise all kinds of questions, including: Why is the primary turnout so low? Are the stats skewed significantly more by the primaries of one party more than the other?  If primary turnout was higher, would we have better leaders? Why does the primary turnout skew so strongly toward older voters? How come moderates don’t do better with elderly votes disproportionately influencing the outcomes of primary elections? Do the parties do a lousy job of turning out voters in their primaries on purpose, or are they just incompetent at it? Worse, is it just that Americans don’t really care all that much who their preferred party nominates? Have self-described ‘Independents’ gotten so large as a group that they don’t feel either party offers them adequate choices? What could be done to increase primary turnout rates?

Such questions ought to provide fodder for further research. But getting back to Warner’s main point, could primary turnouts across the nation improve by promoting voting by mail? Warner notes that “All but 13 states now allow the use of mail ballots for any reason, and in the 2024 general election, 48 million voted by mail.” But that doesn’t tell you what kind of education and promotion campaigns were most effective in increasing primary turnout, in particular. But it seems reasonable to conclude that expanding – and more aggressively promoting – mail voting in primaries could improve primary turnouts and, quite possibly, the quality of our elected officials.