I find the recent letter concerning our state’s “top two primary” to be a bit puzzling, unless the writer is more interested in making a political point than in reducing the number of extremely liberal representatives in our Legislature. (“Top two primary unfair to GOP.”)
A few years ago, prior to the introduction of the top two primary, and in a decidedly Democratic-dominated district, a close friend and moderate Democrat ran for the Legislature. Because any Republican candidate stood little or no chance of success in the general election, my friend received considerable tacit support from several Republicans in the district. While not able to garner more votes than the extremely liberal Democratic incumbent, he still came in second, significantly outpolling the Republican candidate but unable to advance to the general election ballot. So in the general election, I (as a right-leaning independent) was faced with the choice of voting for a Republican who had no chance of winning or for an extremely liberal Democrat.
Had our present top two primary system been in place, I am confidant that my friend would have been elected to the Legislature and would have replaced this liberal legislator with a much more moderate representative. In my mind, that would have been a net gain for the more conservative principals espoused by the Republicans.
The “top two primary” may be unfair to the GOP (or to Democrats in some eastern parts of our state), but it certainly provides an opportunity for more moderate persons to compete against political ideologues of either party.
Robert Grossman
Camano Island
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
