I cannot allow Mr. Wittik’s latest screed, about Democrats crossing over to vote in the Republican primary (“NH primary party switch is legal, but is it ethical?” Oct. 23), to go unanswered.

First, let me just enumerate the most patently ridiculous of his statements:

■Democrats may cross over because they find their own ticket “extremely unpalatable”;

■Chris Christie makes Donald Trump “look like a choir boy”;

■Republican leadership in the House is “sadly lacking at times”;

■It is the Democrats who utilize “every trick in the book” to win elections.

But here’s the real crux of Mr. Wittik’s letter: He wishes the Democratic or independent reader to believe that choosing to vote in the Republican primary next spring is somehow unethical, and flies in the face of the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Let me suggest that it is in fact unethical to waste a vote in the Democratic primary, where the president will not even be on the ballot. Rather, given New Hampshire’s important role in the primary process, voters capable of reading the news and forming thoughtful, informed opinions have a rare opportunity to help deny the nomination to The Donald — the man whose stated purpose, should he regain the White House, is to dismantle the fundamental institutions of democracy, and endow the executive (that is, himself) with outright autocratic power.

Trump’s return to the White House would undeniably bring on another four years of chaos and corruption, the alienation of our traditional allies, cozying up to Vladimir Putin, the denial of climate change, pardoning the Jan. 6 attackers ... the list goes on and on.

Think your vote doesn’t really matter? Let us remember the 2000 election, when a few hundred votes here in New Hampshire would have made the Florida kerfuffle irrelevant, and prevented the Republican Supreme Court from appointing its preferred candidate to the presidency.

Peter B. Beardsley

West Lebanon

Regarding William A. Wittik’s letter (“NH primary party switch is legal, but is it ethical?” Oct. 23), to paraphrase HBO’s Tyrion Lannister, “If you are looking for ethics, you’ve come to the wrong place!”

Tom Drinane

Norwich

In my view, the political divide in America isn't so much between Democrats and Republicans as between those who support the establishment, the so-called elites, and those who don't. Priorities advanced by the political establishment, progressive since the time of Woodrow Wilson, may seem virtuous, but there are some real world consequences to consider.

Items currently and aggressively on the top-down agenda include race, gender, climate, abortion, guns, open borders, sanctuary cities and states, and supporting war against Russia (and probably China as well) (for crying out loud).

To those who are sympathetic to the establishment point of view, I have some questions: Do you prefer this hyper-racialization and division into factions instead of aspiring to a colorblind society? Would you really welcome a multitude of open borders migrants living in tents on your own town green or in your own backyard? Do you actually want to create a state where only violent thugs have access to guns while law abiding citizens are disarmed and defenseless? Are you willing to be monitored and forced to live with an itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny carbon footprint with every restriction imaginable imposed on you? Do you believe that virtually unrestrained feticide indicates a healthy society?

And how about this: Is your support for establishment wars strong enough to sacrifice your very own beloved children? (or just someone else's?) Do you think that they wouldn't reinstitute a draft? Do you think that they wouldn't take your own daughters as well as your own sons? Do all of these causes rate a high level of actual personal sacrifice?

There's a world of difference between well-intentioned ideals and their consequences in reality.

Neil Meliment

Hartland