Letters to the editor Oct. 31

An optimist

I am a foolhardy optimist when it comes to American traditions and ideals. I still believe in the sacred responsibility of voting and have faith that my fellow citizens are as offended by the glossy flyers in their mailboxes as I am. An insult to our intelligence and a waste of money, they have no bearing whatsoever on how we vote.  

I prefer to pore over the voter information booklet and consider the arguments and rebuttals from advocates and opponents of initiatives on the ballot. I prefer to listen to the debates between the candidates as each one articulates their own views instead of constructing my view of a candidate based on the picture their opponent paints. 

Each Election Day, I am reminded of the poet John Greenleaf Whittier. As an abolitionist, he must have understood the irony of his poem “The Poor Voter on Election Day” written in 1852 when women could not vote and most people of color were enslaved, but eight years later as an elector from Essex County, Mass., he cast a vote for Abraham Lincoln for president; thus sending the country on a trajectory where those conditions would change. 

In the poem, Whittier celebrates the great levelling that takes place on Election Day and tells of the pride he has to live in a country where, on one day, the equality of all people is manifest in the most profound way possible. Call me naïve, but I still read it with a sense of awe and patriotism for the genius and endurance of our beloved Democratic-Republic.

— Bruce Guthrie, Kalispell

Raise the bar

It seems like there is a considerable difference between the credibility bars the presidential candidates have to jump over to be considered a qualified contender. 

For Vice President Kamala Harris, it seems her bar is set amazingly high.

For former President Donald Trump, his bar seems to be about the same height as your average toilet seat.

— Dennis McDowell, Bigfork

Election integrity

The election process has been exhaustively reviewed since the 2020 election. Former President Trump’s 62 claims of fraud or stolen election have been reviewed, with all cases (but one) dismissed by both Republican (some appointed by Trump) and Democrat judges. One case dealt with minimal first time voters to “cure” a ballot through proper identification. None with the ability to change the outcome of the electoral count.  

A consequence of the fake fraud claims, states spent lots of time and money reviewing the election process and laws, with the intent to ensure safe and fair practices.  

So why did Trump start declaring 2024 election fraud before the election process started? Why does he say, he would accept the outcome, only if he wins? I don’t believe our country wants another disaster like Jan 6.

There’s not much talk about the limitations of the fraud claims. Why only tamper with the presidential bid? Why not an entire ballot?  

All Senate and House candidates accepted their results and were sworn into office. Why wouldn’t there be election fraud at other levels, not just one? Some current elected officials still refuse to accept the results of only the 2020 presidential race. How come? Is it loyalty or belief?  

To me, fraud doesn’t make sense, unless seen at multiple levels. If 2024 elected officials don’t accept presidential or election results, they should not be sworn into office. Accepting the democratic process is important to our country.

Can we trust local and state officials to run and tabulate our ballots? They are people who live, work and volunteer in our community. All are family, friends and neighbors.  

I believe it’s time we have faith in our neighbors, trust they will do their job, follow laws and preserve our democracy through a free and fair election.  

Vote on Nov 5.

— Laura Gebhart, Kalispell