I agree with my friend Chris Babbidge (Maine Voices: “Self-nominated independent candidates subvert political process” Oct. 17) that well-funded individuals should not skip primaries to become candidates. But I cannot agree that “two party system is best.”

The present system is the greatest obstacle to effective governance. The “us-versus-them” competition for ever increasing funding has corrupted the purpose of representative democracy. Party primaries lean on name recognition, previous service and geography.

If a candidate seeks to reform from within, he may be turned away as the Maine Ron Paul delegates to the RNC were in Tampa. Stakes are high because often legislative majorities establish voting districts, statewide offices like attorney general or secretary of state, restrictive policies and even who may vote and when.

“Us-versus-them” gridlock was the reason John McCain called the present Congress the worst performing Congress ever. It is what Sen. Olympia Snowe cited as her reason to retire. The 17th Amendment created the popular election of senators as a reform of the corruptive influence of selection by state legislatures.

I might suggest that the role of Electoral College rules or partisan political appointment of Supreme Court justices had more impact on Bush versus Gore in 2000 than H. Ross Perot’s independent races for the White House 1992 and 1996.

Two competing parties seeking campaign money from special interests like NRA, NEA or gaming developers based on a promise to guarantee a majority regardless of the qualifications of the representatives is a recipe for disaster and partisanship over purpose.

An open primary and runoff like Portland’s recent mayoral election and reform of the special rules in Congress like committee chairmanships, calendar, and filibuster might help end partisanship. The system is broken, how might we fix it?