I’m not a political strategist, and I am sure more informed people have their reasons — be it voter engagement or allocation of party resources — for the continued existence of primaries. But I wonder, with the exception of the race for governor, whether we can limit their implications.

With the inception of ranked choice voting, my choices were supposed to expand. I should no longer be forced to choose the more electable candidate, or even puzzle over which candidate that might be. The variety of ideas and viewpoints we hear at this point in the election cycle should no longer be relegated to this moment during which fewer voters are engaged. I should be able to vote for all candidates in November, not just those chosen by the primary voters of our two major parties.

Perhaps there is still a role for primaries, but could we encourage all candidates, with the exception of those running for governor, to continue to run in November? And, could we see their continued presence in their respective races not as a negative influence but rather as a move toward a more democratic system allowing for increased voter choice and better signaling of the desires of all voters to the political establishment?

Elena Bertocci
Thomaston