Fairer Way to Choose Ohio Leaders Gets Senate Hearing

Ohio lawmakers heard testimony on SB 395, a proposal to create a Top Three all-voter primary and head-to-head general election system for fairer, more representative results.

The Senate General Government Committee of the Ohio State Senate heard sponsor testimony on June 8, 2026 from Senator Louis W. Blessing, III on S.B. 395, which would implement a top-three all-voter primary and a head-to-head general election system.

Senator Blessing gave his testimony and responded to questions from members of the committee. The discussion raised important issues about competition, fairness, and political parties that we address in this post and will elaborate on in future posts.

Competition and Fairness

Healthy political competition is a good thing and has been linked broadly to improving economic and social well being.

Currently, 71% of Ohio voters are unaffiliated, an indication of the lack of attachment to the two major political parties and the state’s current open partisan primary system. The top-three primary and consensus general election system is designed to promote healthier competition by giving all voters a voice in determining which candidates advance to the general election. Under S.B. 395, candidates for voter-nominated offices would appear on the same primary ballot, regardless of party preference or lack of party preference. Voters would choose one candidate in the primary, and the three candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election.

In the general election, voters would then compare the finalists directly. With three candidates, that means voters would be asked to choose their preferred candidate in each of the three one-on-one matchups: Candidate A versus Candidate B, Candidate A versus Candidate C, and Candidate B versus Candidate C. A candidate who wins both of their head-to-head matchups would be the consensus choice and would win the election.

This structure is intended to make candidates and the parties they represent compete for support from the broader electorate. In the primary, candidates have an incentive to reach beyond a narrow partisan base because all voters participate in the same contest. In the general election, candidates have an additional incentive to appeal broadly because they must perform well in direct comparisons against each of the other finalists.

The system also preserves the possibility of a clear and decisive outcome. For example, in a district where one candidate is broadly preferred by most voters, that candidate would be expected to win their head-to-head matchups against each of the other finalists and be declared the winner.

Finally, S.B. 395 includes a rule for the situation in which no candidate wins all of their head-to-head matchups. In the case where each candidate has one head-to-head loss, the winner would be the candidate with the smallest margin of loss — in other words, the candidate whose head-to-head defeat was the narrowest and who came closest to winning a second matchup.

Addressing concerns about how the system interacts with political parties

The top-three election system changes the way candidates advance to the general election. Rather than using separate partisan primaries to determine party nominees for voter-nominated offices, S.B. 395 would allow all voters to participate in a single primary for those offices. Candidates can still identify a political party preference or state that they have no political party preference, but the top three finishers would advance regardless of party.

While general election field will be determined by the voters participating in the top-three primary, political parties can and likely will play an important role in organizing and supporting candidates. However, the parties will have incentives to ensure that the candidates they support or endorse will be preferred by the broader electorate, not just a narrow group.

In a district where one party is overwhelmingly dominant, it is possible that multiple candidates from that party could advance. This allows for healthy competition within a party that could increase voter turnout in the general election with multiple candidates vying for support. It can also increase the diversity of candidates within a party that have the opportunity to compete and win, thereby impacting representation.

In a more politically mixed district, the finalists could include candidates from different parties or candidates with no party preference.

The system also changes the role of independent and minor-party candidates. Under S.B. 395, independent candidates for voter-nominated offices would participate in the same top-three primary as candidates who state a party preference. If an independent or third-party candidate finishes in the top three, that candidate would advance to the general election and be compared head-to-head against each of the other finalists. That structure reduces the risk that such a candidate is treated only as a “spoiler,” because the general election measures whether voters prefer that candidate directly against each alternative.

Looking ahead…

This is the start of the conversation, not the end. S.B. 395 is designed to foster healthy competition so candidates have to do a better job reaching and engaging voters—and, more importantly, be more accountable to them. At the same time, a top-three system invites reasonable questions about how political parties will operate under new rules. We’ll continue to elaborate in future posts with additional research, practical examples, and answers to the most common implementation questions.