Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The Star Tribune headline on Monday's front page was "Debate centers on election integrity." It seems we have two candidates for secretary of state with diametrically opposed views on Minnesota elections. One is incumbent Steve Simon, who says everything is fine and dismisses questions or concerns about election security, and the other is challenger Kim Crockett, who is running precisely because of his dismissive attitude and lax rules on election security.

Simon calls Crockett's positions, such as advocating for photo ID and vetting same-day voter registrations, "hyperpartisan." He says her "extremism" is disqualifying. Simon talks in vague generalities about orchestrated efforts, painting Crockett as "dangerous."

He just doesn't get that most people don't think it's extreme, hyperpartisan or dangerous to make sure people are who they claim to be when they vote.

I'm looking forward to new leadership in the secretary of state's office.

Ron Smith, Minnetrista

•••

If every four years people are in doubt about who won an election, we have a problem.

In 2016, many on one side denied the outcome. In 2020, many on the other side didn't believe the outcome.

And Simon says we don't have a problem. Yes, we have a problem. Too many people don't believe the results.

We need safe secure elections where people believe the results. Change is needed.

Brahim Zabeli, Excelsior

In response to "Wishing for better leadership" (Readers Write, Oct. 6), criticizing the Biden administration for its Ukraine response: If the letter writer's intent was to praise the Kennedy administration for a peaceful end to the Cuban missile crisis, then he must also praise Nikita Khrushchev. Both John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev were aware of the concept of mutual annihilation from the use of nuclear weapons. Most Americans are not aware that in return for Russia pulling its nukes out of Cuba, America in return did the same in Turkey as well as promised to not invade Cuba, a promise we have kept. The writer also seems to ignore the fact that Cuba is only 90 or so miles from America. The real winner of that crisis was probably Fidel Castro, because he was able to give up nothing but get something in return.

Perhaps the writer would be better served comparing the invasion of Ukraine with the 1950 invasion of South Korea by communist North Korea. (Ukraine and Korea are both about 6,000 miles from America.) That resulted in about 35,000 American deaths. So far, under Biden, no American GI has died in Ukraine.

By the way, in 1950, Harry Truman stated he would take any steps necessary to win in Korea, including the use of nuclear weapons. And, if you are going to praise Robert McNamara, please research the Vietnam War.

James Halvorson, Farmington

•••

Why didn't letter writer of "Wishing for better leadership" tell the whole story? The Bay of Pigs Invasion could have started the war. Sixty years ago America faced the challenge 90 miles off, from an island. Our strength and smart Russian leadership turned ships around and removed missiles. Now the leadership in Russia is not as wise and is willing to continue its bloodbath in Ukraine.

Our leaders have been up to the job. The leaders mentioned in the letter from 60 years ago were the ones who got us involved in Vietnam, where I dodged bullets and lost 58,220 of my brothers in arms.

Vladimir Putin is not a peacemaker; Khrushchev was.

Jim Goudy, Austin, Minn.

•••

A letter writer on Oct. 5 decried today's lack of leadership in nuclear matters, holding up our leaders during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis as paradigms of restraint:

"We avoided a nuclear war with Russia in 1962 because of the leadership of President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and Joint Chiefs Chair Maxwell Taylor. That kind of leadership is missing today … ."

Johnson, McNamara and Taylor were thankfully out of the loop back then. In fact, Taylor and the rest of the joint chiefs were unanimously urging Kennedy to order a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Kennedy's direct personal diplomacy with Khrushchev, bypassing the warmongering idiots, saved the day.

Putin's "threat" to go nuclear should be examined in light of every U.S. president, secretary of state and ambassador to the United Nations since the George W. Bush administration publicly claiming that "all options are on the table" for Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and anyone else incurring the displeasure of the U.S.

William Beyer, St. Louis Park

It is great that Minnesota nursing schools are "sensibly stepping up" to increase the ranks of registered nurses ("Solid teamwork on nursing shortage," editorial, Oct. 6).

The nursing shortage is not just because baby boomers are leaving. Younger nurses want balance. They don't want to work nights, weekends and holidays in a hospital where the administration doesn't care about the staffing shortage, and where nurses on a daily basis are verbally abused by physicians and at times both verbally and physically abused by patients and their families. The culture needs to change.

There is a contract that has not been settled for five-plus months. That certainly says a lot about the lack of respect and support hospital management is willing to provide to nurses.

Jeanne Kenady, St. Louis Park

The writer is a registered nurse and certified pediatric nurse.

When someone searches for news or is recommended an article on Google or Facebook, that platform is driving traffic to the publisher. Every business in the world wants these platforms doing exactly that. The fact that the traffic driven to newspapers does not monetize like they'd want says more about the traditional business models of newspapers than anything else ("A robust free press needs freedom to protect its work," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 6).

Newspapers used to be monopolies on the local distribution of news. Once a paper reached a sufficient scale, network effects kicked in. More subscribers led to more advertising, both of which increased revenue and profits. Those profits were reinvested back into the newsroom, which led to better local coverage. And the paper with the best local coverage naturally attracted more subscribers in a virtuous flywheel. Eventually competition faded away or was absorbed by the larger distribution network. Monopoly economics kicked in, and the paper was free to maximize absolute dollars of profit.

There's now a digital connection into everyone's house that can deliver more news in minutes than we could consume in a lifetime. That means competition, which either takes your revenue, your margin or, worse, both. Newspapers are in a fight they were not structured for or are accustomed to.

It is a tricky issue. Newspapers have the freedom of the press, but nothing says they have a right to monopoly, local or otherwise. All else being equal, it's better to try and appeal to the broadest possible audience to limit bias and echo chambers, but that also hasn't always been the case in the history of newspapers, and we've made it this far. If newspapers should be supported in some way because of their sacred role to democracy, then that is a debate to be had. But that doesn't necessitate patronage either. Either way, I'll read about how it all unfolds in the Star Tribune every day. For now, at least.

Spencer J. Kubo, Minneapolis

It's hard for me to wrap my head around the absurdity of turning on an oven to 350 degrees to bake one cookie ("Single-serve sweets," Oct. 6). What an energy waste!

Roberta Dale, St. Paul