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.
Unaffiliated candidate for US Senate in Nebraska, Dan Osborn is facing Earth hater Pete Ricketts. Similar matchups are happening in South Dakota and Montana where weak Democratic candidates are running in third place.
Well, to be fair, Lar,the Messrs. Bengs and Beaudion are just two different muffin stumps from the same bad batch of dough. While Mr. Bengs may be a slightly higher bet right now, they’re both less than 4% on the political money sites my granddaughter’s boyfriend dabbles in.
Closed versus open primaries is not the problem: political parties and the corrupt systems they create and perpetuate are the problem.
If there is one lesson we should take away from the last (2024) election, it is that the party system does not well serve this nation.
Bit why listen to me after 200+ years of ignoring Washington’s warning.
The problem is with winner take all. The Europeans do it better. If your party has 30% of the vote it has that power.
No, just no.
Afraid that instead of just taking a Doedenesque schellacing you’d have not mad the general at all, eh Ms. Tyler?