Top two not the answer

Any political party should be able to determine its process to choose its slate of candidates for the general election. No party should be able to put forth more than one candidate for an office at the expense of another party’s offered choice.

Washington’s top-two primary system seems to favor dominant parties at the expense of other parties. Your suggestion (May 18 editorial) that this would be a good system for Idaho, considering Republicans are the dominant party, is truly undemocratic and obviously a statement based on your own political leanings.

The citizenry should be adamantly opposed to …

Any political party should be able to determine its process to choose its slate of candidates for the general election. No party should be able to put forth more than one candidate for an office at the expense of another party’s offered choice.

Washington’s top-two primary system seems to favor dominant parties at the expense of other parties. Your suggestion (May 18 editorial) that this would be a good system for Idaho, considering Republicans are the dominant party, is truly undemocratic and obviously a statement based on your own political leanings.

The citizenry should be adamantly opposed to such a primary system. It should be considered only if no other party has nominated a candidate for the position. In that event, perhaps the second place candidate could be on the general election ballot. This would at least offer the citizenry a second choice.

From my perspective, there is no way a second Democrat candidate should eliminate a Republican for a general election position just because she happened to garner more votes in the primary. As a Democrat, I firmly believe the Republicans have the right to nominate the person they ultimately select, no matter how much blood they shed in their process.

David B. Larsen

Coeur d’Alene