Open Primaries Could Limit Voters’ Choices
Re “A Sneak Attack on Open Primaries,” Opinion, July 4: I’m not particularly partisan, but the “more choices” rationale for open primaries is counterintuitive. It may allow different choices, but not more. If anyone can vote for any party, then it’s quite possible for one party’s voters to vote for a weak opposition candidate to enhance their own party’s chances. Alternately, an opposition candidate who is close to their own views could be selected, leaving little ideological choice between the two candidates. Either way this means less choice, not more.
To me the purpose of a primary should be to allow the members of each political party to determine the candidates to be selected for the general election that best match the party’s views. That would seem to be a fundamental right. If you weaken that process, I believe you weaken democracy. Just because the majority of voters want open primaries doesn’t mean it’s good. The tyranny of the majority must always be tempered to protect the minority’s rights.
Carl Rutschow
Upland
*
If the political parties want to have closed primaries, they should pay the entire cost. If they want the taxpayers to pick up the tab, then all voters should be allowed to split their tickets if they choose in the same way as a general election.
Chuck Little
Twentynine Palms
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
