Being a fully informed voter is hard work. In a non-presidential midterm election year, a typical Oklahoma voter picks 17 officeholders. These include county, state, and federal offices. Add municipal, school, and special districts that may not occur on the same day, but do arise in the course of a two-year cycle, and it can be more than 20 votes. And, don’t forget the ballot propositions, tax questions, and judges. 

How are voters supposed to sort out all of those candidates and questions? Where can they find information about them? Of course, there is no one source. In many cases, the information is scant if it exists at all.

The American Founders established a constitutional republic to prevent such confusion. But progressives have spent 150 years degrading the structures of the U.S. Constitution. Each progressive idea sounds good, but taken together they have destroyed the delicate balance between representative deliberation and majority rule that the Founders envisioned.

Now progressives bring a new plan. This one confuses voters even more. They start by confusing the name.

Open Primary?

Progressives in Oklahoma are asking voters to sign a petition instituting something they call an “open primary” and others call a “jungle primary.” Advocates would have gone with a “blanket primary,” but the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled blanket primaries unconstitutional. What Oklahoma progressives are really pushing is a California-style “top two” system.

Their scheme is not really a primary at all. Primaries are elections where political parties nominate candidates for the general election. That is not allowed in this system. It is a two-round voting system that makes it even more difficult for voters to know which candidate to choose.

Popular Sovereignty

The writers of the American Constitution wanted to ensure popular sovereignty. They thought long and hard about how to best express the popular will. In 1776 the United States started as a weak confederation. By 1787 it was clear that a stronger structure was required. But how strong?  And, how directly should the people’s voice be heard? They settled on a system in which, for federal office, voters only chose their member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Voters did not choose the president or U.S. Senators. The states chose them. Voters did not decide questions. It was an indirect system of representation, but making only one choice allowed citizens to vote their values and their interests with minimal research. It was representative democracy.

This was controversial from the beginning. Very soon competing factions began to organize into what we now know as political parties. Self-interest took over and by the late 1800s parties had become corrupt political machines.

Progressives blamed the election system for this corruption and began dismantling the representative structures found in the Constitution in favor of a more direct democracy. The result of these reforms is that voters now have a lot more choices and a lot more work. Sometimes even the most well-informed and diligent voter must make blind guesses because the necessary information is just not accessible.

Voting Cues

Voting cues are among the most important functions of political parties. Voters and candidates tend to join parties that represent their values, ideology, and interests. Research shows that whether voters research every candidate or simply select their party’s nominees, they pick the same candidates most of the time. Party labels are important heuristics that simplify voting. They tell the voter in a low-information environment which candidate is most likely to represent their values. 

Parties do other important things as well. They organize activists, raise funds, lay the groundwork for a campaign, and turn out voters. But, nominating candidates and providing voting cues are the most important. 

Primaries are how political parties in Oklahoma are required to nominate their candidates. Some states allow parties to use other methods, like caucuses and conventions, or a combination. Oklahoma became a state during the Progressive Era. So, progressive plans like primaries were part of Oklahoma from the beginning.

Since Republicans took control of Oklahoma after the 2010 election, progressives have been dissatisfied with the system they imposed. Until recently, they wanted to mandate the process for how parties nominate candidates. Now, they do not want to allow parties to nominate candidates at all.

Under the plan they have filed as State Question 836, all candidates for office would be placed on a single ballot. The two candidates with the highest number of votes would advance to a runoff election. There would be no nominating primary. There would be no general election between party nominees. They call these voting days primaries and general elections, but they are neither. 

This progressive regime would allow candidates to list a party affiliation. But the party members would have no control over who chose to use their label. It would not be a nomination.

Suddenly, the voting cues provided by political parties for more than 100 years in Oklahoma would be meaningless. Party labels would exist, but those labels would not provide much useful information. Voters would have to research the details of every candidate in order to vote their values and their interests. 

Freedom to Associate

An election system based on freedom would allow voters to join parties freely and it would allow parties to nominate candidates using any method they prefer. But individual freedom was never a progressive value. They have always preferred to limit individual freedom to achieve their partisan goals.

Politics is a team sport. Majority preferences arise when voters join coalitions of like-minded citizens. Those teams, those coalitions, are called political parties. Organizing as a party is how the majority governs. Progressives have been trying to destroy parties since the late 1800s.

Divide and Conquer

Had this California-style top-two scheme been in place in Oklahoma in 2018, it is very likely that two Democrats would have been on the final ballot for governor and no Republican. The primary featured 10 Republican candidates and two Democrats. Republican primary voters cast 452,606 votes and Democrats cast 395,494. Obviously, the Republican vote was divided among many more candidates. As a result, the two Democrats each received more votes than the top-ranking Republican. Drew Edmondson received 242,764 votes and Connie Johnson received 152,730. The top Republicans, Mick Cornett and Kevin Stitt, received 132,806 and 110,479 respectively. 

So, even though the state is solidly conservative and Republicans won the most overall votes, under the no-primary, top-two California system, only Democrats would have been on the second-round ballot.

The actual result, after the Oklahoma parties nominated candidates through our primary/runoff system, was that Republican Kevin Stitt won the election handily because there are many more conservative voters in Oklahoma than progressives.

A similar scenario occurred in California when Kamala Harris was elected Attorney General. There are many other examples. In fact, 16 percent of California’s State House and congressional races had candidates of the same party in 2012, the first year of California’s top-two system. Progressives win when they divide the vote. 

Voter Turnout 

Progressives claim that top-two voting stimulates voter interest and increases voter turnout. In fact, in California, voter turnout hardly changed at all. California’s top-two system began in 2012. In the two preceding non-presidential general elections, California had voter turnout of 33% and 37%. Oklahoma had voter turnout of 34% and 37%, virtually identical. 

In the three non-presidential general elections following 2012, California had turnout of 25%, 41%, and 36%. Oklahoma had turnout of 28%, 40%, and 37%. Again, the pattern was very similar and Oklahoma’s turnout exceeded California’s in two of the three elections. The top-two system did not improve California’s voter turnout as compared to Oklahoma’s.

Moderate Officeholders

Proponents argue that a top-two system will produce more moderate officeholders. The limited number of studies on this topic categorize top-two systems with other types of open systems. They find virtually no evidence that open systems produce more moderate candidates. In fact, two studies suggest they may be slightly more extreme.     

Summary

So what outcomes are associated with top-two voting? 

• No change in voter turnout
• No change in officeholder ideology
• Weaker governing teams
• Less freedom of association
• More work for voters to make an informed decision

The California-style top-two system proposed in SQ 836 does not deliver on its promises. Instead, it makes it more difficult for voters to choose a candidate that represents their values and interests.