LETTER: Question 3 isn’t just about open primaries

Kudos to Review-Journal reporter Jessica Hill, who took time recently to educate the public about Question 3 of the 2024 election (‘They can’t vote in a Nevada primary. This initiative could change that,” Oct. 20 Review-Journal).

However, while Ms. Hill explained the two-pronged nature of Question 3 — a constitutional initiative to implement California-style jungle primaries and a novel, ranked-choice voting system for general elections — her reporting focused mainly on the former element. The first 11 paragraphs — and the headline — scarcely mention the ranked-choice voting element of Question 3 and instead highlight the unchallenged claim that “open” or “jungle” primaries offer something of value to independent voters.

Many subscribers will be left with the false impression that Question 3 merely implements jungle primaries. This is false, of course, as is the underlying premise that the current system necessarily disenfranchises independent voters. (Polite reminder to “disenfranchised” nonpartisans that Nevada allows same-day voter registration.)

In reality, ranked-choice voting is a confusing, unproven system that threatens to upend Nevada’s traditional “one person, one vote” democratic standard. I urge reporters and voters not to gloss over this major element of Question 3 as the November 2024 election nears.