Readers Write: Closed primaries protect political machines

Readers Write: Closed primaries protect political machines

This is in response to Kathy Rittel’s view in 2/23/18 edition of Herald Courier. 

I could not agree with her more on the unfairness and infringement these closed primaries present.   

I, for one, became incensed when, my son, Frank Scaturro, ran for Congress as a challenger for the 4th District Congressional seat three times. 

Case in point: The League of Women’s Voters had sponsored a candidates’ night for the public to have an opportunity to hear the political views and ask questions of the candidates.

It was very common for the political party’s “pick” to not show up – even cancel within an hour of the event, in which case, the primary challenger of that same political party was not permitted to speak to the public that came out to hear the various views on the issues at stake.   

I phoned The League of Women’s Voters and questioned why they have a policy not to allow the challenger to speak if there is a “no show” by the other candidate? 

The response I received was, “Those are the rules we follow.  Complain to your political party about that.” 

Well, a lot of good that would do. Political machines are not in favor of the public having open, transparent choice in an election. 

It does not take a genius to see that.  I’m also in agreement with Ms. Rittel’s opinion about the burden of collecting signatures from members of one’s party to allow for a candidate to run for office. 

As she pointed out, these practices (closed primaries and candidate’s petition signing) are not the rule across the country, which means that the voting results in some states, namely New York, have an unfair (negative) bias due to this way the voting process is handled here.

Rosanne Spinner

New Hyde Park

No posts to display