So few votes, so many elections

Re “Top-two primary hasn’t delivered,” Analysis, June 10

The analysis criticizing California’s top-two primary system did not mention the amount of money spent by California taxpayers to conduct a primary that failed to entice the vast majority to do what I was taught in elementary school is my civic duty — vote.

This is mind-boggling, as voting has been made so simple to do. Every registered voter in California now receives a mail-in ballot. One doesn’t even need to use a stamp to return the completed ballot.

But let’s talk about taxpayer money spent on all these elections. Last year, in the failed gubernatorial recall election, the state spent $200 million — much-needed funds that could have been better spent on critical issues such as water, homelessness, law enforcement, schools, fighting fires and more.

And the funds spent by taxpayers to conduct the primary just five months before we spend even more to conduct the November midterm election doesn’t taken into account all the money spent by the candidates and their supporters.

It’s time to reconsider the California election process. It seems that the primary process here has accomplished little except to be another item funded by the state. Laurie S. Adami

Los Angeles

Of course California’s top-two primary system hasn’t delivered.

Providing opportunities for moderate and independent candidates is a worthwhile goal, but the top-two primary is the wrong tool. We still elect candidates whom 40% of the voters love and 40% of the voters hate.

Ranked-choice voting is the right tool. It has worked in Europe and in many U.S. localities such as New York City. A candidate who is not the first choice of the most voters can win with a broad base of support and lots of second-choice votes — in other words, lots of likes, but few hates. Russell Stone

Westchester