Readers Write: It’s Election Day
On trusting the process, who readers voted for and how to fix this nation.
•••
If anyone is unsure about the security and honesty of these presidential elections, then they haven’t been involved as an election judge or worked for their city or state’s election departments. I have. And I can attest to the honesty and the extent to which state and local governments go to ensure true election results. I am insulted by the accusations that the 2020 and the 2024 were and will be manipulated and false. Those accusations are leveled by those with no experience or involvement with their state’s process. And they denigrate the earnestness and sincerity with which these sometimes humble Americans are giving of their time and energy to ensure free and fair elections. I charge those people to get involved and see for themselves. And then tell me how unfair their elections are.
Mary K. Willert, Minneapolis
•••
The flawed two-party system is responsible for a jaded electorate, as described in the Nov. 3 article “The fears and frets of voters along Hwy. 61.” Omitted from the article is any mention of the fact that millions voted outside the duopoly for third parties like the Greens or Libertarians. Surely the reporter could have located at least one third-party voter’s viewpoint.
Voting for Trump, an unqualified narcissist, was out of the question. Voting for Harris was a vote for the continuation of her promise to keep arming an apartheid state, enabling ethnic cleansing and war crimes — also out of the question. If genocide (labeled as such by international law) is not a red line for you, you have completely lost your humanity.
As a Green, I stand outside the toxic red MAGA/blue MAGA dichotomy, with all their hate spewing exaggerations such as Trump’s plan to install a fascist dictatorship, as if every state’s police force and all branches of the U.S. military would allow that. On the other side, we have the crazed exaggeration that Harris is a Marxist, ignoring the fact that there are several communist parties in the U.S., none of which she has membership in (they would never have her).
Mainstream media repeatedly cancels third-party viewpoints, denying American voters a non-jaded, hopeful reality: There are positive, viable alternatives to an immigrant-bashing candidate vs. the other one, who has us mired in genocidal, losing, endless wars.
Kristina M. Gronquist, Minneapolis
•••
Every time I vote in a national election I come away wondering why we are voting for 20 or more judges we know nothing about. Would it not make for a lot better system to have the appropriate elected officials pick them and face the consequences of their selection?
Chris Johnson, Waconia
•••
I was disappointed to read Andy Brehm’s opinion piece stating that he was voting for Donald Trump, with whatever amount of “reticence” he cast his ballot (“This Nikki Haley Republican will be voting, with reticence, for Trump and Vance,” Strib Voices, Nov. 1). I was disappointed precisely because, unlike many in his party, he has been willing to explicitly hold the former president to account for his words and his behavior. Brehm acknowledges that “Congress and the courts and the leaders within his own party will need to hold [Trump] to account,” but on what grounds can Brehm believe this will be the case? When Democrats in Congress have attempted to do so Republicans accuse them of being partisan; we have ample evidence that Republican leaders in Congress and elsewhere will refuse to do so. After the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, I have less hope we can count on the courts than I formerly did.
I found Brehm’s decision to vote for the former president especially disappointing because he informs us that, in conscience, he could not do so in 2016. His attempt to blame this on the Democrats rings hollow. I disagree with Brehm’s characterization of Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz as extreme, but beyond that, it was Republicans’ responsibility to nominate someone for president who is fit for the office; it is not Democrats’ responsibility to nominate a candidate suitable to someone like Brehm when his own party fails to do so.
Significantly, as I am sure Brehm knows, many conservatives came to a different conclusion. To cite one example, Peter Wehner, an evangelical Christian and a Reagan conservative, recently cited many examples where he saw Harris having policy perspectives that justify conservative support, including support for the rule of law, commitment to NATO and a belief in the importance of personal character for those holding political office. Wehner concluded that with a Trump victory, true conservatives will have no political party to call home for a generation or more. Can Brehm really believe that MAGA Republicans, flush with victory, will be interested in listening to his attempts to hold Trump to account?
I understand that Trump presented an agonizing dilemma for traditional conservatives. I believe that, unfortunately, Andy Brehm, unlike Wehner, former Rep. Liz Cheney and many others, resolved that dilemma wrongly.
John McGuire, Rochester
•••
Trump’s supporters took another punch recently. But the punches landed were not based off his policies. Just hate, condescension and elitism.
First, President Joe Biden called Trump’s millions of supporters, including Elon Musk, “garbage.” Next up was Harris’ surrogate, billionaire Mark Cuban, who appeared on “The View” last week and insulted women who work for or who support Trump. Said Cuban; “You never see him around strong, intelligent women, ever, it’s very simple.”
Mr. Cuban, if the women working for Trump or who support him are so stupid, how did he manage to win the 2016 presidential election, on his first try? And how has he managed to succeed so far in this year’s election season? And how would he have survived the multiple legal cases that threatened his campaign without the help of very smart women?
Don’t be surprised to see many Trump supporters don their “garbage” and “stupid” shirts and hats during the next several days. I’m wondering who is up next to throw the next punch at Trump’s supporters.
Neil F. Anderson, Richfield
•••
How nice to be firmly planted in the majority, knowing my candidate is the best for our country while the other is incompetent with a long history of disqualifiers, bad policies and poor judgment. How could that other party even nominate such a misfit?!
If this sounds familiar, we have indeed been manipulated. The media has played us all. We believe exactly what our respected media professionals tell us, regardless of their exaggerations and spin. Their profits accelerated with the fall of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Out of concerns about monopolies and manipulation, Congress passed the doctrine in 1949 requiring licensed radio and TV broadcasters to present fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues. Look how emotionally charged and divided we have become since. We are compelled to absorb more coverage to refute the evil other party.
Friends, until we bring back the Fairness Doctrine and eliminate the blame-and-shame game, we cannot come together to resolve our issues. Economists forecast both candidates adding to our debt, which we know will drown our future and limit our actions when true borrowing is needed. Yet nobody is talking about a balanced budget, let alone foreign interference, AI, campaign finance reform, etc. The more we are manipulated, the more we are distracted and our foreign enemies win. Many great and creative ideas for improvement lie within our grasp. Let’s start with restoring the Fairness Doctrine and get to work on what matters.
Jim Durda, Minnetonka
about the writer
On trusting the process, who readers voted for and how to fix this nation.
