Joe Kirby mildly exaggerates the influence of party-switchers in Governor Larry Rhoden’s big runoff win this week. But the Sioux Falls politico does reasonably observe that we could obviate the need for party-switching by getting rid of closed primaries:
The biggest lesson from this year’s governor’s race isn’t simply who won. It is that thousands of South Dakotans wanted a voice in the election that really mattered.
For one election, South Dakota experienced something resembling an open primary. Participation broadened. The winning candidate earned support from a larger and more representative electorate. The process worked much as advocates of open primaries have long argued it would.
Next time, voters shouldn’t have to change parties to make that happen [Joe Kirby, “Voters Opened Our Closed Primary,” Sioux Falls Joe, 2026.07.30].
One of Kirby’s commenters, Robert Peterson, complains that “Democrats should choose their candidates. Independents should choose their candidates. Republicans should choose their candidates. Anything less leads to the possibility of choosing a lower quality candidate who doesn’t reflect the values of the party.” But open primaries don’t stop parties from choosing their candidates. Parties can still convene and caucus before an open primary and nominate candidates. They can establish whatever rules and mechanisms they like to put their formal seal of party approval on their preferred primary candidates. But then we can throw those formal nominees and other candidates running independently onto one public primary ballot and let every voter have a say in who should advance to the general election.