This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The premise that mail-in voting is bad ("Mail-in voting kills challengers' chances," June 19) is both specious and spurious. The real solution to incumbent entrenchment is term limits, not fewer voting options.
In fact, term limits on all elected positions provides enormous benefits on several fronts. The political process would actually look like what our "founding fathers" intended: government by citizen legislators, not career politicians.
Second, money would not dominate the political systems as is does now, as, with a time limit to serve, there is no need to spend the majority of time in office on fund raising and meeting with lobbyists.
Unfortunately, the legislators are most often not interested in cutting off their own gravy train. So until there is grass roots demand sufficient to force legislators to act on term limits, the incumbents will continue to be at an advantage. (Google "U.S. term limits" for information on current efforts.)
Finally, with mail-in voting I find having the time at home to research the candidates before I vote is a great step in the direction of informed voting. In the past, I have found myself in the voting booth with long lists of names for all manner of offices (e.g., judges) and had no idea how to make an informed choice.
I voted by mail this time, and I find it convenient and smart.
Larry Hoffmann
Salt Lake City