If I were coming up with a list of the most useless things in the world, I would disregard my wife's suggestion of "Husbands" as the number one entry and instead offer "Local Preliminary Elections."

The most recent local exercise in futility took place in North Attleboro. A very small percentage of voters turned out Tuesday for the dubious purpose of reducing the field of candidates for selectman from five to four.

I have never participated in a local preliminary election. Perhaps because of that I am left to wonder if at some point in the past the leaders of North Attleboro thought their constituents had trouble concentrating on more than two candidates for each elected office.

At a time when most communities are struggling to get more people involved in government, North Attleboro thinks it has too many. Since too many would apparently confuse the electorate, it has been deemed necessary to whittle down the list of choices.

Their way of doing that is to have yet another election. I suppose that makes sense to someone - not to me, but someone. Seriously folks, is there any greater waste of taxpayer money and voter time than preliminary elections?

Sure, maybe they make sense in places where there are multiple offices and a slew of candidates regularly seeking election. But in this area, with the types of local government we have, how can anyone think the concept is a good one?

It is hard to believe town officials think voters need to hold a costly election simply to eliminate one selectman candidate from the list. North Attleboro is full of very intelligent people. It is doubtful many of them are now relieved their choice for selectman in April has been reduced from an unmanageable five down to a more workable four.

Aren't elections all about offering people choices? Do we truly advance that goal when we limit those choices unnecessarily?

Preliminary elections are designed to eliminate "fringe candidates" and to discourage people who know they cannot win from running simply to take votes away from another candidate. It prevents people from running in teams, where one is merely there to help advance the cause of the other.

While that can happen locally, it is not likely, given our governmental formats.

People do not turn out in force for local preliminary elections because they find them rather meaningless. The turnout numbers clearly show the public's lack of interest. Only about 5 percent of the town's more than 18,000 registered voters bothered to participate Tuesday, far less than the number who normally vote in regular town elections.

Former selectman David Chee was eliminated from the April ballot. He finished just four votes behind longtime incumbent Marjorie Kraskouskas, who barely survived the process.

North Attleboro citizens have now been denied the chance to cast anything but a write-in vote for a well-respected former local official in their regular election. They were almost prevented from voting for or against one of the longest-serving selectmen in recent history. And why?

Because a long time ago someone thought preliminary elections were necessary and a good idea. And now today, no one apparently wants to take the time or expend the effort necessary to correct their predecessor's mistake. Eliminating preliminary elections would require amending a town bylaw. That has been rejected in the past - no surprise in North Attleboro government, where change is a four-letter word.

Previous attempts to amend the charter and change the form of government have run into serious opposition from local leaders. In many cases, having preliminary elections provides protection for well-established incumbents. Changing that may be difficult as well.

But it would be worth the time and effort.

Voters want to choose once - not twice. They would rather see the money preliminary elections cost the town spent on educating their children, strengthening their police and fire departments, or fixing their roads.

Or even - God forbid - lowering their taxes.

Preliminary elections serve the needs of politicians, not voters. They are unnecessary and costly. Eliminate them, and trust the citizens.

Unlike husbands, they have proven over time they know what they are doing.

BILL GOUVEIA is a community columnist and has been a useless husband for 30 years. He can be reached at aninsidelook@aol.com.