Contrary to what supporters of Sid Kramer's write-in campaign for Montgomery County executive have suggested {"Fair Is Fair," Letters to the Weekly, Oct. 18} the Democratic primary was thorough in its exploration of the issues, and the election was fair. Mr. Kramer had the advantages of incumbency as well as enormous resources and a media blitz to get his message out. The issues were debated repeatedly and vigorously. The election turnout was normal. More than 43 percent of registered Democrats voted -- only slightly less than the turnout four years ago when Mr. Kramer ran against David Scull. (I don't recall Kramer supporters questioning the results of that primary.)

But, claim the write-in proponents, most Kramer supporters didn't know the election was close, so they didn't vote. Don't his supporters read the papers or follow the local news? The newspapers and other media were full of stories about how close the race was. It is not unusual for a candidate to claim that those who supported his opponent were uninformed, but it is extraordinary for a candidate to claim that most of his own supporters are ignorant and uninformed.

It's always harder to be a good loser than a good winner, and Sid Kramer is not used to losing. It's time for Mr. Kramer and his supporters to face the facts -- it was a fair election, and the people chose Neal Potter.

WENDY COLLINS PERDUE Silver Spring

As election day nears, Sidney Kramer's motivation for mounting a write-in campaign seems more and more self-serving. Nothing in Mr. Kramer's public statements indicate that the September primary did not afford him an adequate opportunity to articulate his vision of the future of Montgomery, to present his record as county executive or alert voters to his views on the major issues. Rather Mr. Kramer seems to think that the majority of Democrats (more than 55 percent) who chose to sit out the primary deserve a second chance to vote for him.

Mr. Kramer is misguided in his approach and his view of the electoral process. As a long-time party activist, Mr. Kramer should be no stranger to the reality of the primary system and the protocol for those who do not win their party's nomination. No one expects Mr. Kramer, or any primary loser, to embrace all of the views of the victor, but voters expect him to respect their wishes and the legitimacy of their votes and allow the winner to carry the party's banner without hindrance from party activists and supposed party "leaders."

All candidates have a responsibility to "get out the vote" on Election Day. Mr. Kramer's organization, with its relatively huge financial resources, was either unable or unwilling to invest its funds in getting voters to the polls and paid the price when the ballots were counted. One cannot predict what the outcome would have been had voter turnout been heavier, but as one who came out to vote on Sept. 11, I resent the notion that Mr. Kramer cannot accept the judgment of those of us who did cast our ballots.

SCOTT E. MILLER

Potomac