A single-payer plan for Minnesota As a nurse I am concerned about the Nov. 23 editorial, "A welcome strategy for health care fixes," because this strategy would lead us in the wrong direction. The National Priorities Partnership supports the current health care model that is not working for us. A look at its website reveals that it is a group of health insurers and others invested in the status quo.

Minnesota is in need of health care reform that will work and care for us all. The reason our current model does not work is the administrative inefficiency of our health insurance industry. This inefficiency is about 30 percent of our health care costs and is represented by special interests: marketing, lobbying, profit, salaries and perks, billing practices, pharmaceutical costs, telling doctors how to practice medicine, underwriting which is designed to keep the sick out of the system, as well as the administrative cost to collect money from the health insurance companies. No wonder Americans are sicker, dying sooner and paying twice as much as other developed countries!

One model of health care that would transform our health care system is the Minnesota Health Plan. Do not confuse the MHP with other plans. MHP is a single-payer model that would ensure that all Minnesotans receive high quality, patient-focused health care (medical, mental, dental, prescriptions) regardless of their income.

MHP would be affordable, efficient and simple. There are already several reasons that the health care community would like this because studies show that 64 percent of doctors would prefer such a system. With MHP you choose your doctor. What makes MHP more cost effective is that is would make sure that health care dollars would be spent on health care and not to "the middleman." So beware the special interests creating barriers to MHP. Educate yourselves and then contact your politicians that you want a change.

ELLEN HOLMES LAFANS, EAGAN

Little respect for the work of election judges I have been an election judge for the past eight years. While there is some hourly pay for the service, I consider the primary reason for performing these duties to be a volunteer for the benefit of the community. We are adequately trained and administer the election laws as they currently exist on the state statutes.

The entire voting system is built entirely on the word "trust." There is no requirement that new registrants provide proof that they are a U.S. citizen. There is no requirement that voters prove who they are at the time that they vote. The system is built on the premise that all people are honest and the election judge must trust that whatever is said to them to be the truth. This is a system which would never be allowed to exist in private business; but, nevertheless, it is the system which our legislators have deemed to be appropriate for electing our leaders.

This concept of "trust," however, does not appear to exist for evaluating the performance of the election judges. Absentee ballots are determined by at least two election judges of different parties to be accepted or rejected based upon the state statutes. These decisions and are made before the contents of the ballot are known and are not taken lightly. One candidate in the current senatorial recount does not trust the decisions made by the election judges and would like to put each rejected absentee ballot under a microscope for further evaluation. This is an absolute insult to all election judges. It essentially says, "You low-level grunts do not have the ability or integrity to make these weighty decisions and only our high-priced lawyers are able to make the final determination." Those accept/reject decisions were previously made and should be considered to be final.

If the rejected absentee ballots in this recount are reopened and reanalyzed, there will be one less member in the election judge pool for any future election. I will not subject myself to this high-visibility second guessing while trying to provide a volunteer service for the community. I suggest that all other election judges reevaluate their commitment to volunteer when there are candidates who have so little respect for your efforts. Perhaps the lawyers overseeing the recount can become the election judges for future elections. They will, however, be required to take a major cut in pay to do so.

CHARLES BONNES, CHAMPLIN

All the drama of the recount I want to compliment Jerry Holt for his outstanding photograph featured on the front page, Nov. 20. It expresses the drama and true Americana of the recount. Norman Rockwell could not have made a better portrayal. Thank you!

BRUCE KIVI, FRIDLEY

Why we need instant runoff voting Thank you for printing David Durenberger's and Nick Coleman's columns supporting instant runoff voting (Nov. 25), and for Lori Sturdevant's thoughtful pieces on the same subject.

If ever there was an election that demonstrated why holding an instant runoff is superior to the first-past-the-gate system, it is this one.

While IRV would not absolutely preclude a statistical tie vote that would require a recount, it would substantially lower that likelihood and would absolutely preclude a candidate whom a majority of votes voted against from taking office.

IRV would therefore increase voter engagement because voters could campaign enthusiastically for their candidate and vote their consciences without having to partake in statistical guesswork. It would improve the quality of campaigns because candidates would have to persuade a majority of voters -- including those who aren't already committed to them -- and not merely a plurality of their hard-core partisans. And it would give winning candidates political and moral legitimacy that a plurality winner does not enjoy.

PAUL LANDSKROENER, MINNEAPOLIS

What Gophers could learn from U of Chicago I'd like to add a little accurate history to a Nov. 25 letter writer's comments about the University of Chicago dropping football. In 1939, Chancellor Robert Maynard Hutchins dropped football because, having never given an athletic scholarship, he felt that his students could not compete with semi-professionals. In 1946, for the same reason, the university dropped out of the Big Ten. I attended their last basketball game against Ohio State. Don't forget that two major inventions happened at the University of Chicago: Amos Alonzo Stagg's "T-formation" and the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction.

Football returned in 1969. The U of C still competes with schools like Oberlin, Macalester and Carnegie Mellon. Interestingly, there is more individual lifetime sports instruction available there than at any other school.

I must agree that 55-Zip last month was no fun.

BILL PHILLIPS, EDINA