Voting restrictions were un-democratic

I took part in the March 21 partisan convention of the 19th Legislative District to vote for candidates for the N.J. Legislature in the upcoming June primary election.

Before that convention met, an official-looking "done-deal" slate announcement of the two incumbent Assembly candidates was submitted to a newspaper. Ignored was the fact that a third person was competing for one of the two seats needed for the Assembly. County officials said nothing and did nothing to correct that news release.

When it was time to vote at the convention, the chairman brazenly announced a slanted voting procedure to better insure the incumbents as big winners. The voters were told that had to vote for two of the three candidates or their vote would be void and eliminated.

To maintain democracy, the vote should express the desires of the voters not a forced vote that does not reflect their wishes. What's wrong if delegates favoring just one candidate, or objecting to all candidates? Two winners would have emerged. Democracy considers all opinions seriously without lopsided double-talk and dictatorial orders of a chairperson.

A major issue simmering among many of the voters present is the issue of "1 person, one government job at a time, and only one government pension." A more efficient government could result. It would certainly save some tax money for hard-working taxpayers.

Florence Caporaso

Colonia