To the editor: The editorial calling on California to move its primary from June to March is spot on. ("Why doesn't California, the world's eighth-largest economy, have a real say in the primaries?" editoria, Feb. 12)
For someone who just turned 18, my son is unusually interested in politics. He regularly watches the debates of both major political parties. It was disappointing for him to find out that by the time California is allowed to vote, the fields will have been substantially narrowed.
Similarly, I have advised him that the concept of "one person, one vote" is illusory, in light of the antiquated electoral college. As an extreme moderate and an independent, I am disappointed that neither the Democratic nor Republican nominee will spend much time campaigning in the most populous state because it is a virtual lock that the Democratic nominee will carry California.
I guess the silver lining is fewer traffic jams.
Ken Feldman, Tarzana
To the editor: For terms that start the next January, both February and June primaries limit our options way too soon. Politicians often face their toughest challenges in primaries. Why let them be done so soon?
For better-informed voting based on more relevant information and more interaction with candidates, we could have all primaries in September. All we'd need is for election officials to certify primary results a bit more quickly.
Even better, we could go all the way to November and rank our choices in combined primary-general elections. A Rolling Stone article this month notes that with ranked-choice voting, we could stop subsidizing the parties' primaries and "let them deal with their workings on their own." We could have better elections and get a monetary bonus too.
David A. Holtzman, Los Angeles
The writer is a former president of the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles.