A vote is taken during a Republican caucus at John F. Kennedy High School in Denver on Feb. 7, 2012. Writing in last Sunday’s Denver Post, two political scientists at Colorado College proposed abandoning Colorado’s caucus system in favor of a mail-in presidential primary. (John Leyba, Denver Post file)
Re: “Imagine a mail-in presidential primary for Colorado,” Jan. 4 Perspective article.
The last thing I would like to see is a mail-in presidential primary. I am sick of the phone-it-in, there’s-an-app-for-that, how-easy-can-we-make-it-for-you generation. As an election judge this past election, I watched helicopter mom after helicopter mom dropping off the envelope on the last day for the live-in 20-year-old “child” who probably was told how to vote as well.
Not only can you drop off after you vote at the breakfast table, but if you forgot to register when you got your license, you can register on the day of the election. Still, I run into people who, when they see my “I voted” sticker, go out of their way to tell me how they don’t vote because they feel the choices are the lesser of two evils. Like choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Please leave the system to the people who care enough to see each other face to face.
Joan Poston, Denver
This letter was published in the Jan. 11 edition.Political scientists Thomas E. Cronin and Robert E. Loevy offer some statements that need examination. First, the claim that unaffiliated voters are excluded from the primary process is bogus. No, they are not excluded; they exclude themselves. No one is prevented from affiliating with a political party; it is a choice. Second, the caucus method does not exclude a lot of people. Again, it is a choice and one is reminded of the biblical quote, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” People get their lottery tickets, go to the grocer’s, attend movies and churches, bars and restaurants, the list goes on.
The republican form of government the Founding Fathers developed requires participation. They did not stipulate that it should be easy; rather, they fought a war, had a failed attempt of a government, convened a constitutional convention with monumental disagreements therein, and, yet, produced the Constitution. A 21st century decision to participate should be an easy one.
Carl Schneider, Boulder
This letter was published in the Jan. 11 edition.If the principal benefit of “semi-opening” Colorado’s primaries is increasing participation — in part by allowing unaffiliated voters to participate — I have a few questions for political scientists Thomas E. Cronin and Robert D. Loevy: Why just the presidential primary? Why limit participation to choosing either the Democratic or the Republican candidate? Why not hold a single primary in which all registered voters participate, regardless of political affiliation? In effect, why not allow the voters, rather than the political parties, to choose the “top two” candidates to run against each other in the general election?
One of the benefits touted by Cronin and Loevy is the possibility of effecting their proposal through legislative action instead of by changing the state constitution. Since we agree on the goal of encouraging participation, why not allow the citizens to vote on whether to allow open primaries, instead of leaving it to the partisans who populate the legislature?
Gwen Ballard, Carbondale
The writer is a member of the Coalition of Independent Voters in Colorado.
This letter was published in the Jan. 11 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
