Margaret Kobos, CEO of Oklahoma United, argues for passage of State Question 836 and the end of closed party primaries in Oklahoma, claiming the current process is unfair. SQ 836 would instead put all candidates on a single ballot, and the top two finishers would proceed to the general election.

Yet the results of that process duplicate the “problems” that Kobos says justify eliminating our current system. Currently, Kobos says the primary is effectively the general election in areas dominated by one political party. But in California elections, which operate under the SQ 836 system, voters’ November choices are routinely limited to two members of the same political party, even in statewide races. Having, in effect, a single partisan choice for major offices is no reform.

Also, voter turnout in California elections is often low by national standards.

If Oklahoma operated under SQ 836 in 2018, our gubernatorial choices in November would have been a liberal Democrat and another, even more liberal Democrat, even though far more votes were cast for Republicans in the primary. That’s because numerous Republicans ran and split that vote, making the two Democratic candidates the “top two” finishers. SQ 836 would have effectively robbed conservative Oklahomans of any choice in the general election.

Kobos hints at her real motivation when she writes that Oklahoma “seems paralyzed when it comes to real common sense and forward motion.” Put another way, Oklahomans vote for policies she doesn’t like (conservative ones).

But losing an election doesn’t mean the system is flawed. It means your ideas did not draw broad voter support. Thus, SQ 836 is not an effort to improve the democratic process in Oklahoma. It’s an attack on the democratic process and an effort to rig the system.