Netlets for Tuesday, Feb. 12

As an American who believes in the principles this country was founded on, I am absolutely disgusted beyond comprehension by the Star Tribune's Feb. 5 editorial bashing Ralph Nader.

It's sick for journalists to suggest that Nader's accomplishments, including the Freedom of Information Act which makes writing investigative journalism a whole lot easier than it used to be, amount to "wasted talent."

Since when was running for public office "exploiting" and "undermining" the electoral process? When mainstream, centric Democratic candidates blame a liberal, third-party candidate for their electoral losses, they're exploiting, undermining and ultimately abandoning the idea of a true democratic government.

Mainstream Democrats should take a hint from Nader and start appealing to the progressive base they were supposedly founded on. Instead, they are afraid that even merely acknowledging this base will result in the loss of an election.

It's time for Democrats to start explaining why their policies are more progressive than the ideologies of Ralph Nader. It's also time for journalists to acknowledge the debt they owe to him.

JOEY PETERS, MINNEAPOLIS

The strength of his convictions In regard to your mean-spirited vilification of Ralph Nader, is it so outrageous that there might be an option that is not one of the big-name brands?

It's bad enough that many leave behind their personal convictions while voting, but do we have to mock and attack someone who offers an alternative?

ANDY WALTZER, LANESBORO, MINN.

Not on the backs of elephants A Jan. 31 letter writer tries to make the case that children are not in danger riding the backs of elephants.

To put a child on the back of an elephant is dangerous, and we can turn to the Denver zoo's decision to stop elephant rides in 1990 as one of many examples of animal experts putting a stop to elephant rides. As reported in the New York Times, "Zoo officials said the risks to children figured heavily in the decision to cancel the rides in January. The rides were part of a concession. 'Even a normally docile animal can have a bad day,' " said [zoo spokesman] Mr. Peterson. 'And when they're that large, they can inflict quite a bit of damage.' " (New York Times, May 14, 1990).

Riding elephants also sends the wrong message about how to treat animals. Obviously the writer thinks he should get to endanger children and make animals suffer before he'll give money to the Shriners. If he wants to support the Shriners, he should do so. Just not on the backs of elephants.

Caucuses depress participation As a first-time caucus participant last Tuesday night, I now understand why the voter turnout in caucus states is so low. I sat through speeches and the procedures, but I really just wanted to vote.

I pay attention to the news and watched the debates (for both parties' candidates) and decided to try it. I was inclined to go for both positive and negative reasons. First, I wanted to vote for my candidate based on my belief in him, but also to not cede the battle to his personally well-funded opponent, who'd been using a huge amount of his wealth on negative ads, nor to Rush Limbaugh and his over-the-top comments. Unfortunately, the process resulted in a stacked deck.

Even though my candidate, John McCain (if you hadn't guessed by now), got a very significant lead across the country Tuesday night, I was heavily outnumbered in the group I was sitting with. I was left to wonder if there would've been a different result if this had been a primary state. I'd noticed that results from various states seemed to show much greater participation in those with primaries versus those with caucuses. Do we want less participation? Do we want the extremely motivated elements of both parties to have even more pull then they already have? If so, then why not add even more hoops to jump through to the process and winnow it down to even fewer and find out who the real hard-core voters are? Kind of a caucus version of "Survivor"!

I just wanted to vote, but I won't make that mistake, again.

DAVID POOLEY, NEW HOPE

Ballots for the presidential race were distributed and collected in an incredibly haphazard manner. Ballots were insufficient for the number of attendees and as a result extra ballots were printed during the evening to accommodate the large crowds. The "ballots" being used were simply small pieces of scrap paper collected by individuals in canvas bags inside the caucus entrance. They are in no way verified or tallied in the way that votes are counted during the November general elections. Upon examination, the final voting percentages in states using the caucus system versus presidential primaries showed incredibly wide margins of victory for Obama. These margins are wildly different than suggested by polling data days prior to Tuesday and more important are sharply different than margins in states using the primary system.

It would be interesting to see what exit polling in states such as Minnesota, North Dakota and Colorado showed in comparison to the final tallies recorded in these states. The continued trust needed to legitimize our democracy depends on honest and accurate elections.