Speed Gibson

First, I intend to vote Sept. 12. I hope you do, too. But I really think we should reconsider the whole concept.

Within a primary there are actually several sub-formats used. One is to resolve the established party candidates: Pawlenty vs. Jeffers, Hatch vs. Lourey, and the 5th District DFL Battle Royale. Another is to simply pare the field. We have five candidates for Mayor in my city, only two of which will go on to the general election in November, regardless of affiliations or incumbency. And sometimes, the School Districts or other taxing authorities try to slip an addiitional levy or bond issue referendum through.

I think we should only use the second format: pick the top two candidates in each race. Party endorsements stop at the convention. Referendums and other non-candidate selection votes can wait until November.

So, in the embattled 5th District, the winners might be Ellison and Reichgott-Junge. Yes, they are both DFL. Yes, Republican Alan Fine and all the other candiates would be gone. But the public is better served by this, I think. Ember and Keith can now go head to head in the general election. So would Pawlenty and Hatch most likely.

In Connecticut, this would mean a Lieberman - Lamont duel at the finish, not this "independent" Joe. I'm unable to think up a bad scenario, unless you're a third party supporter. Yes, it might have meant Jesse Ventura wouldn't have become governor, but maybe he would have, too.

The Green Party has long sought "instant runoff" ballots to give voters mulligans in case their endorsed candidates don't win. This is exactly the wrong solution, a pointless complication. Everyone can't serve. That's what elections resolve, selecting who will serve. Keeping minor party candidates needlessly alive isn't helpful. If anything, they have adverse spoiler effects as in the cases of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.

Let's just pick the top two people in September, giving them two solid months to campaign mano a mano.