To the editor:

On the general election ballot will be Amendment 3 to end party primary candidate selection. Tacitly opposed by both the RNC and the Democratic Party, the initiative seeks to do away with pesky policy considerations in voting selection by minimizing party affiliation in the selection of candidates for office. The “top two vote getters” in the primary would run against each other in the general election if Amendment 3 passes. Even if the two “top vote getters” were both running as candidates from the same party in the primary, these two top vote getters in the primary would have locked out the other party from contesting in the general election.

If passed, Amendment 3 could reduce the general election to a mere beauty contest where the two candidates who spent the most money in the primary could prevent voters from casting a vote in the general election expressing dissent from one party orthodoxy. The contest in the general election could essentially be devoid of governance considerations dictated by the party platform planks if the measure is passed. And is there anybody that believes giving away more power to big money in politics would be a good thing?

A no vote on Amendment 3 is required to keep the parties in charge of their own messaging. In a primary with many candidates a lively discussion of party values can be aired. But in a primary with many candidates a very slender number of votes can wind up being the “top” vote getter. Unfortunately Ku Klux Klan and neo Nazis candidates, affiliating themselves as GOP candidates, have run for office in the recent past. Both parties should be allowed to disavow such candidates in the primary. Removing the obligation of the party to police its candidates in the primary, as suggested by Amendment 3, may open up representative democracy to some very base elements.

Ellen Starbird

Cape Coral