Regarding the March 8 letter, “Primary decision: Parties’ right to free association restored”: Mr. Kent Hanson seems to think that freedom to vote for a person instead of a party is oppression. It is not. Restricting political participation to only faithful party members is oppressive. Freedom to vote for whomever I choose should continue to be a right in this state.
The argument that more than one qualified candidate from the same party might end up on the ballot is a good thing. We should always have the chance to select from among the best.
Certainly the candidates are the parties’ ambassadors, as they must be. Don’t the parties all endorse the best candidates they think can win the public’s support? Perhaps you of the party elite should re-think the way they choose the candidates they support. If the major parties are so weak that they cannot present their platforms independently from the candidates, perhaps they should re-think their positions.
It has been my personal experience that political influence that is funneled through party politics is often likely to be tainted by special interests.
Our blanket primary ensured that special interests must appeal to everyone, not just the political party elite. The “Top Two,” the so-called Cajun primary system, is the closest to the blanket primary and is my choice.
I have voted mostly for Democrats over the years and probably will continue to do so. Sometimes the person I would like to see in the general election is not a Democrat, though. I resent the attempt to take away my right to vote for a candidate who is not one that toes the party line. Folks I talk to are angry that party leaders are attempting to take away our rights. They really should listen to the voters and not their selfish backroom buddies.
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
