Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
Sherrie McNall wrote to the Pacer that many voters are misinformed about SQ836. Among the misinformation that is out there is that the top two jungle primary in SQ836 will increase turnout. The results from the two states that have this system show that after numerous election cycles turnout has remained flat.
Another piece of misinformation is that top two will increase choice, but by allowing the hyper-partisan minority that votes in primaries to eliminate all but two candidates SQ836 will dramatically reduce choice for the majority voting in the general election. The two candidates may be from the same party and be very similar, making even that ‘choice’ virtually meaningless.
I agree with McNall that taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for political parties to pick their nominees, but SQ836 is a cure worse than the disease which we know from California and Washington where the top two jungle primary is used that it won’t increase turnout and it won’t reduce polarization. And we know from those states would SQ836 eliminate nearly all independent and alternative party candidates and it would further incentivize negative campaigning, dark money, and dirty tricks.
When voters consider SQ836 they should ignore the marketing and read the product reviews and they will see that top two jungle primaries doesn’t deliver on it’s promises. There are reforms that would empower voters and increase choice, but SQ836 isn’t one of them.
Chris Powell Bethany
