In some ways, I agree with Don Roberts (column, “Losers think ranked-choice voting gives them a better chance of winning,” Jan. 15) on the matter of ranked-choice voting. It’s a wonk’s tool to work around the large forces that are the party structures and the outsized egos of some who style themselves “independent.”

Instead of ranked-choice voting, I offer the alternate plan of a single and open primary, a system that encourages all to participate and all to have the final say in deciding who is on the ballot.

Roberts doesn’t acknowledge the complications of a three-candidate race. In the end, it’s a choice, and when we make a choice, it’s best to do it with open eyes. Simply adding the totals at the end of an election doesn’t illuminate the complication. Instead, let’s boil it down to: Here are two candidates; vote for the one you prefer.

Let’s allow everyone who wants to run for governor, U.S. Senate and U.S. House, at least, including party favorites, on the ballot for a single primary election open to all voters on the Tuesday after Labor Day. If a candidate can muster a majority (more than 50 percent of the vote) at that time, he or she is in, with no need for a run-off. (A graceful loser in Congress could, at that time, step aside early and give the newly elected Maine representative an edge in seniority.)

In the more likely event that no candidate wins a majority in September, the top two finishers are the only two candidates on the ballot in November. There would be no guarantee that those two candidates would be a Republican and a Democrat, and no guarantee that a well-funded or self-funded independent would get past the primary.

In a single primary open to all voters, candidates who want to run will have to appeal to all, not just to the whim of some small fraction of the voters.

Jim Perkins, Wayne

Copy the Story Link