Election Day!
Before elections analysis and predictions and such, it's time for a diatribe.
The issue: Oklahoma's system of primary elections is just plain wrong. While this statement alone may be generally true, I refer to one situation in particular: primary elections that become the general election.
Case in point: the Cleveland County DA's race will be decided today. No Democrats or Independents filed for the election; only two Republicans. As a result, whomever the Republicans select in their primary today will win the general election de facto -- thereby making this primary election the de facto general election. However, Oklahoma has closed primaries, meaning that only Republicans may vote in the primary -- thereby disenfranchising the majority of voters in the county, who are either Democrats or independents (no party / third party).
One response to this criticism would be to simply register as a member of the party holding the primary -- however, multiple problems arise with this response. First, by state law, you may only change your party affiliation up until May 31 of an election year, whereas filing doesn't close until a week later -- and candidates may still withdraw several days after that. So, as of the last date to change party registration, there would be no way to know what party to register as a member of. Furthermore, there's typically more than one race on a ballot -- what if one race would be decided in the Democratic primary, and another in the Republican primary? This would force an individual to be disenfranchised in at least one of the races.
Another response would be to simply run yourself if you don't like the other party's primary deciding the election. This response also fails for several reasons -- consider first that there's no way to know whether there will be a cross-party challenger until after filing is closed. Next, remember that candidates may withdraw after filing has closed -- so a contested election can become a single-party election. Finally, it bears noting that not all voters can run in any given race -- every elective office in Oklahoma requires certain qualifications that prevent some voters from being candidates.
So, what's the solution? The choices seem clear: either maintain the current system which forces the disenfranchisement of a majority of voters in any election where the primary becomes the general election, or modify the system to treat these elections as general elections.
Before I continue, I want to explicitly state that this is not a call for an open primary system; while such a system has its own merits and flaws, it is separate and distinct from what I advocate. This problem can be solved with far less radical of a change.
The solution is as simple as this: after the period for filing and candidate withdrawal has closed, the State Election Board should identify all races where the winner of the primary election will be the de facto winner of the office. These primaries should then be excluded from the normal closed primary system and instead be treated as general elections wherein all registered voters may vote. This could be done either at the time of the other primaries or at the time of the general election (which would be preferred, so as to not include final elections for office on a ballot with preliminary elections).
I would appreciate feedback on this idea; I'm very strongly tempted to move forward with it, be it as a lawsuit or a petition, as my exclusion from the election of my own District Attorney has filled me with quite a bit of indignation.
The issue: Oklahoma's system of primary elections is just plain wrong. While this statement alone may be generally true, I refer to one situation in particular: primary elections that become the general election.
Case in point: the Cleveland County DA's race will be decided today. No Democrats or Independents filed for the election; only two Republicans. As a result, whomever the Republicans select in their primary today will win the general election de facto -- thereby making this primary election the de facto general election. However, Oklahoma has closed primaries, meaning that only Republicans may vote in the primary -- thereby disenfranchising the majority of voters in the county, who are either Democrats or independents (no party / third party).
One response to this criticism would be to simply register as a member of the party holding the primary -- however, multiple problems arise with this response. First, by state law, you may only change your party affiliation up until May 31 of an election year, whereas filing doesn't close until a week later -- and candidates may still withdraw several days after that. So, as of the last date to change party registration, there would be no way to know what party to register as a member of. Furthermore, there's typically more than one race on a ballot -- what if one race would be decided in the Democratic primary, and another in the Republican primary? This would force an individual to be disenfranchised in at least one of the races.
Another response would be to simply run yourself if you don't like the other party's primary deciding the election. This response also fails for several reasons -- consider first that there's no way to know whether there will be a cross-party challenger until after filing is closed. Next, remember that candidates may withdraw after filing has closed -- so a contested election can become a single-party election. Finally, it bears noting that not all voters can run in any given race -- every elective office in Oklahoma requires certain qualifications that prevent some voters from being candidates.
So, what's the solution? The choices seem clear: either maintain the current system which forces the disenfranchisement of a majority of voters in any election where the primary becomes the general election, or modify the system to treat these elections as general elections.
Before I continue, I want to explicitly state that this is not a call for an open primary system; while such a system has its own merits and flaws, it is separate and distinct from what I advocate. This problem can be solved with far less radical of a change.
The solution is as simple as this: after the period for filing and candidate withdrawal has closed, the State Election Board should identify all races where the winner of the primary election will be the de facto winner of the office. These primaries should then be excluded from the normal closed primary system and instead be treated as general elections wherein all registered voters may vote. This could be done either at the time of the other primaries or at the time of the general election (which would be preferred, so as to not include final elections for office on a ballot with preliminary elections).
I would appreciate feedback on this idea; I'm very strongly tempted to move forward with it, be it as a lawsuit or a petition, as my exclusion from the election of my own District Attorney has filled me with quite a bit of indignation.