California’s Open Primary

Good public policy regarding California’s presidential nominating primary should be an open-and-closed case. Our mischievous propensity for addressing complex issues through the initiative process has muddied what ought to be a crystal-clear situation.

Richard Hasen (Commentary, Feb. 4) asserts the issue is “whether the primaries belong to the parties or to the people.” If the initial selection of presidential candidates truly belongs to the entire electorate, then political parties are superfluous in those elections, and we should use a nonpartisan balloting process.

Under Hasen’s political philosophy, all qualifying candidates should run on a single ballot without regard to party affiliation, with a runoff among those receiving a combined majority of the vote if no single candidate gains that level of support. In fact, the single transferable ballot by which voters rank their choices would allow the same result from a single election.

In the current contentious situation, half a loaf is not better than none: If the November choices are assigned one per party, then only registered party members should select their party’s nominees.

DAVID COHEN

Bakersfield

*

I just turned 18, yet I am still only one of a few seniors in my class planning to vote or register to vote.

Under the open primary law, I naively figured that I could register as an independent and would be free to vote for whoever I thought most qualified. When the political establishment decides to take away our right to participate in the election of our country’s leader, it becomes immensely clear why the political process doesn’t work and what the established parties really want: straight-ticket drones with no will of their own. Many individuals wonder why today’s youth are so indifferent to any political involvement. I counter, why should we even bother?

MARC VUONG

Tustin