Many people pushing for California-style jungle primaries argue that fundamentally changing our voting system would moderate politics in Oklahoma. That not only begs the question of whether moderating politics would be a positive for Oklahoma, but it also isn’t true.

A look at the two states that have already adopted open primaries is illustrative.

Washington

Prior to the 2004 election, Washington had a split legislature with Republicans controlling the Senate (25-24) and Democrats controlling the House (52-46). Its two United States Senators were Democrats, and its House delegation was split in favor of the Democrats (6-3).

The 2004 election brought about a change in leadership in the Washington Senate. Democrats now controlled the House (55-43) and the Senate (26-23). The partisan makeup of the congressional delegation remained unchanged. Three Republicans were elected to statewide office (Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Commissioner of Public Lands).

That same 2004 election cycle, Washington adopted a “Top 2 Open Primary” system.

Twenty years later, there are no Republicans elected to statewide office. The Washington Senate has grown its Democratic majority to 30-19 (up from 26-23 after the 2004 election), and the House has grown its Democratic majority to 59-39 (up from 52-46). 

Does it look like open primaries are a moderating force in a body politic?

California

California adopted its open primary system in 2010. In that same election, Democrats grew their majority in the state Assembly (the equivalent of the Oklahoma House of Representatives) by two seats and held a 52-28 majority. Prior to the 2010 election, the Assembly had one elected Independent. The Democratic control of the Senate remained unchanged (25-15). All statewide elected officials were Democrats. In Congress, Democrats had a majority in the U.S. House (34-19) and held both U.S. Senate seats.

A look at the 2025 California Legislature shows that Democrats have grown their majority in the Assembly to 60-20 (up from 52-28 in 2010) and in the Senate to 30-10 (up from 25-15 in 2010). All statewide elected officials continue to be Democrats. In Congress, they’ve grown their majority in the House to 43-9 (up from 34-19 in 2010) and their two U.S. senators are still Democrats. 

Again, it’s hard to see how ushering in open primaries has moderated politics in Washington or California. 

What has happened is that those states both went on to be dominated by Democrats. Of course, the reality of open primaries is that they benefit the party that’s the best at playing political games. As it turns out, one party recently went so far as to put forward a presidential candidate that no one had voted for in the primary. Political games are its trade.  

Open primaries are designed to—and do—help Democrats win elections. Don’t let anyone convince you they are about moderating politics.