I have to take issue with state Rep. Judy Warnick’s June 21 Guest Opinion (“Top-two primary best reflects people’s choice”) lauding the so-called “top-two” election process Washington state will adopt starting with the primary in August.

First of all, a democracy we are not.

In its purest sense, democracy is little more than mob rule that, when applied with ideological intentions, can limit choice, squelch divergent viewpoints and result in anarchy.

Rep. Warnick is correct in her assertion that the “top-two” primary system ensures this one size-fits-all political outcome.

The United States is, in fact, a constitutional republic — a rule of law by the people and for the people.

In contrast to democracy, a republic is a representative government, the fruits of which protect the minority from being trampled by the majority and protect the majority from a tyrannical minority.

The old Washington state blanket primary was more reflective of this and ensured that no party or individual was, regardless of size or clout, disenfranchised from the decisive general election ballot by the primary election results.

Moreover, it also assured that no single party or individual could easily rise to exclusive preeminence.

Historically, one need look no further than the last century for infamous cases of abuse arising from similar circumstances.

At this point, most readers will think I’m out of my mind, but please bear with me for the moment.

The Marxist Bolsheviks of Russia and the National Socialist German Workers (aka Nazi) Party of the mid-1930s did not come to popularity through the death camps or gulags.

Their political messages were popular at the time and were perceived to be “in the people’s best interest.”

Once in power, however, dissenting and divergent views were gradually legislated into silence, then ultimately cast into oblivion by dictatorial fiat.

It’s no secret that the top-two system could easily result in candidates from only one party on the general election ballot.

In polarized locales like King County, this would be like having a vote between Ernst Rohm of the SA and Adolf Hitler himself.

Sure, their views were generally in keeping with the tenets of National Socialism; they just had different beliefs on how to carry them out.

The same could be said for Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky.

Rep. Warnick asserts that the top-two primary best reflects the peoples’ choice for the general election.

Really?

Some would contend the best choice is an opinion determined by the vote of the people in a general election not prejudiced by an aggressive get-out-the-vote drive in a primary.

The pick-a-party primary, in limiting primary voting choices by party, effectively prevented potential general election sabotage, caused by intentional party jumpers voting for weaker opposition candidates.

The older blanket primary went a step further in assuring total freedom of voter choice.

Ms. Warnick does point out that the constitutionality of the top-two system was upheld by the Supreme Court, but then again, the Peoples Courts in Germany conveniently upheld whatever eliminated political opposition to the Nazi party.

Rep. Warnick concludes her remarks with, “Some are concerned the candidates on the general election ballot could consist of just one party, but I believe the people’s choice is more important.”

Or, as Orwell put it, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

To many, the likelihood of a ballot race consisting only of candidates from a single party is a dismaying reality.

For some, it is akin to losing their voice in the political system, all the while making absolute and supreme the voice of what they oppose.

Jarrod Roth is a Port Orchard resident.