The problems with primaries

While I applaud the Daily Herald for its efforts to contact and provide exposure to candidates to help voters determine their qualifications, experience and viewpoint, it is naive to think that a significant portion of the population is even aware of this service. In a primary, it is probable that the general population doesn’t know the candidates or, for that matter, care. They’ve been overexposed to inane commercials and nasty accusations.

Campaigns are too long. Six weeks would focus their message and save money. Primaries require public disclosure of political parties. Technology can make this private within the voting booth. Only the high-profile races are covered before Election Day. Many races list only one candidate, if that. Voters are being manipulated, marginalized, and managed.

Citizens have an obligation to vote. If a voter cannot prove they have fulfilled that duty, there should be consequences — maybe a surcharge on their income tax. Voting should span at least two days to enable the electorate to exercise this privilege. Exemptions must be documented. No exit polls or premature winners should influence the vote.

Campaigns are costly. Can only the rich or well-connected run for office? Dark money corrupts. How many voters will research Open Secrets to learn cui bono?

The U.S. Constitution requires that elected representatives represent equal populations as nearly as possible. “As nearly as is practicable one (man’s) vote in a congressional election is to be much as another’s.” Is this the case?

Gerrymandering tactics ensue when a state uses the American Community Survey to divide up the districts. The ACS presorts population by social, economic and housing status from which politicians can cherry-pick their voters. There must be an algorithm somewhere.

Sheila M. Barrett

Elk Grove Village