South Dakota’s Republican runoff for governor produced an unexpected experiment in election reform.

Thousands of Democrats and independent voters changed their registrations so they could participate in the Republican primary. They didn’t suddenly become Republicans. They simply wanted a meaningful voice in choosing the person who will likely become South Dakota’s next governor. And the system responded.

Toby Doeden entered the runoff with a passionate and loyal following. His populist message energized a segment of Republican voters and generated considerable attention throughout the campaign.

But when the electorate expanded beyond the traditional Republican primary voters, his support did not expand with it. He received only about 30 percent of the vote.

Switch to Make a Difference

For months, election reformers have encouraged Democrats and independents to temporarily register as Republicans so they could vote in the election that mattered most. At first, many people resisted the idea. They disliked having to change their party registration simply to cast a meaningful ballot. But as the campaign progressed, thousands concluded that the alternative was worse. Sitting out the election that would likely determine the state’s next governor made little sense. So, they adapted to the rules.

Ironically, their decision made this year’s Republican primary a little more like the open primary South Dakota should already have.

A Better System for Choosing State Leaders

South Dakota is effectively a one-party state. Republicans hold every statewide constitutional office and dominate the Legislature. No non-Republican has won statewide office since 2008.

That means the Republican primary usually determines who will govern the state.

Yet more than 160,000 independent voters, along with Democrats, are normally excluded from that election unless they first change their registration. This year, many did. The result was a broader electorate and a nominee who demonstrated support beyond a narrow political base.

That should not be viewed as a partisan victory or a partisan defeat. It should be viewed as evidence that broader participation produces a better test of whether a candidate can appeal to large groups of voters and govern an entire state.

Closed Primaries Distort Party Registrations

Predictably, some party activists were unhappy with the thousands of South Dakotans who switched their registrations to vote in the Republican primary. Some Democrats viewed the move as disloyal and worried it artificially reduced the number of registered Democrats in the state. Some Republicans objected that voters who were not traditional Republicans had participated in what they considered a private election. Both reactions miss the larger point.

Our closed primary system distorts voter registration. Many South Dakotans register with one of the two major parties not because it reflects their political identity, but because it is the only way to participate in the closed primary election. Registration becomes a strategic decision rather than an honest expression of political affiliation.

That helps explain an apparent contradiction. National surveys consistently find that roughly four in ten Americans identify politically as independents. Yet only about one-quarter of South Dakota voters are registered as independent or unaffiliated. The gap exists because our election laws encourage many voters to register with a major party simply to have a meaningful vote.

The real problem isn’t that thousands of South Dakotans changed parties. The real problem is that they felt they had to. An open primary would eliminate that incentive. Voters could register with the party they genuinely identify with, or with no party at all, and still have a meaningful voice in choosing the people who will govern the state.

We Shouldn’t Have to Change Parties

Changing party registration is not a permanent solution.

People should be free to register with the party they genuinely identify with, or with no party at all, and still have a meaningful voice in choosing the people who will govern the state.

A top-two open primary accomplishes exactly that. Every registered voter receives the same ballot. Every candidate competes in the same election. The two candidates receiving the most votes advance to November. Candidates must appeal to a broader cross-section of South Dakotans, not just the most partisan voters within one party.

The Lesson

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.