DON'T CALIFORNIA OUR OKLAHOMA
01.
In the United States, primary elections serve as a crucial mechanism for political parties to select their candidates for general elections. Open primaries, which allow voters regardless of party affiliation to participate in any party's primary, have been adopted in several states as a means to increase voter engagement and reduce partisanship. However, this system undermines the fundamental purpose of primaries and introduces significant risks to the democratic process. Open primaries dilute party autonomy, enable strategic sabotage, and fail to produce more representative outcomes, ultimately harming the integrity of elections.
02.
One of the primary drawbacks of open primaries is that they erode the autonomy of political parties by allowing non-members to influence internal decisions.
Primaries are not general elections but rather party-specific processes designed for registered members to choose nominees who align with their values and ideologies.
​
In an open system, unaffiliated or even opposing-party voters can cross over and vote, effectively giving outsiders a say in a party's direction. This blurs the lines between parties and weakens their ability to maintain distinct platforms. For instance, proponents of closed primaries argue that parties have a constitutional right to associate freely and control their nomination processes without external interference.
By contrast, open primaries treat parties as public utilities rather than private associations, which can lead to nominees who do not truly represent the party's core base.
03.
Open primaries are vulnerable to strategic voting and party raiding, where voters from one party deliberately participate in another's primary to nominate weaker or less electable candidates.
​
This "crossover" voting is a well-documented concern, as it incentivizes manipulation for partisan advantage.
​
Historical examples abound: in some elections, organized efforts have seen voters switch primaries to boost extremist or unqualified candidates, making it easier for their preferred party to win in the general election.
​
Such tactics not only distort the will of genuine party members but also erode public trust in the electoral system. Closed primaries mitigate this risk by requiring voters to affiliate in advance, ensuring that only committed members participate and reducing the opportunity for sabotage.
04.
Advocates for open primaries often claim they increase voter turnout and promote moderation, but evidence suggests otherwise. While open systems may slightly boost participation among independents, primary electorates remain less representative of the broader population compared to general elections.
​
The openness can lead to confusion, with too many candidates on ballots overwhelming voters and potentially resulting in less informed choices.
​
Rather than fostering bipartisanship, open primaries can exacerbate polarization by allowing fringe elements to hijack nominations.
VOTE NO to SQ 836
Open primaries pose more problems than they solve by compromising party integrity, inviting manipulative voting, and failing to deliver on promises of greater representation. To safeguard the democratic process, states should favor closed or semi-closed primaries that respect party boundaries and ensure fair nominations. By doing so, we can maintain a system where parties truly represent their members, leading to stronger candidates and more trustworthy elections.