Proposed top-two open primary system will not improve Oklahoma elections

Last November, Oklahoma United announced an initiative petition drive to change the state’s current closed primary system to a top-two open primary system.
While 20 states have open primary systems, only three have the type of top-two primary system that Oklahoma United is promoting.
Oklahoma is among 15 states that have semi-closed primaries. State law requires that only voters affiliated with a specific party be allowed to vote in a partisan primary election, unless a party decides to open them to independent voters.
For almost a decade now, the Democratic Party in Oklahoma has allowed independent voters to participate in its primary elections. The Republican and Libertarian parties do not.
A top-two primary system places all candidates for a particular office, regardless of party affiliation, into a single primary. The two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election. There is no requirement that the candidates who advance receive a majority of the votes and there is no run-off election.
Advocates of opening primaries argue that the state’s current primary system disenfranchises a large segment of voters, allows political insiders too much influence and depresses turnout. They also point out that a significant portion of elective offices in Oklahoma are decided before the general election.
When considering how to construct an election system, several important outcomes – which sometimes can conflict with one another – must be considered.
These include voter participation, candidate representativeness, electoral competition and the right of partisan affiliated voters to choose who will represent them in the general election, better known as the right of association.
Some political science research has indicated that turnout in U.S. primary elections is substantially lower and less representative of the general public than turnout in the general election.
A recent study by the Bipartisan Policy Center indicates that open primaries can be a mechanism to increase voter participation and create a primary electorate that is more demographically representative of the general election voter.
However, other research has indicated that the actual differences between primary voters and general election voters is less significant than one might think.
For example, a 2018 study found that “primary electorates are not ideologically unrepresentative of the broader party.” The study further questions the effectiveness of primary reforms on reducing polarization. An earlier study found that voters’ ideological makeup did not change depending on whether they voted in an open or closed primary.
If a top-two primary would expand voter participation, but not have a significant impact on the types of people elected to office, would it still be worth the change?
This depends on how one weighs the various outcomes in importance.
Is high voter turnout the most important outcome of an election system, or is it more important to elect candidates with ideological and policy preferences that are aligned with the most voters? What about ensuring that voters have genuine choices among various political parties? How do we rate the significance of protecting the right of association for citizens who have organized under specific parties?
We are sympathetic to the need to increase voter participation in our state.
Being next to last in eligible voter turnout is certainly an indication that something is wrong in Oklahoma politics.
However, if one assumes the Bipartisan Policy Center’s estimate of a 5% increase in voter turnout from shifting to an open primary system, the state would still remain in the Bottom 10 of states for voter turnout – hardly a dramatic shift.
And the results could be less electoral competition, an increased likelihood of unrepresentative candidates being elected, and a weakening of the right of association.
If the goal of reformers is to simply increase voter turnout, there is an easy mechanism for doing so – mandate it.
However, turnout isn’t the only priority – and mandatory voting is not likely to be supported by a large number of Oklahomans.
There are other reforms that could be implemented that would help increase voter turnout while also promoting electoral competition between parties and the selection of candidates more in line with the general electorate.
Some suggestions would be the implementation of ranked-choice voting or establishing limited open primaries when there will be no general election competition for a specific office. It would also help to make it easier for voters to actually cast their ballots through expanded in-person early voting periods and locations, increased access to absentee voting, and exploring mobile voting.
Advocates for electoral reform should be cautious in overpromising what any given reform, especially a top-two primary system, can deliver.
There are other options which can produce greater turnout while also positively impacting other important electoral outcomes.
