Readers Write (Aug. 13): U.S. Bank Stadium, Ilhan Omar's primary win, Tice's column on trade deals, choosing Disney World, Hillary Clinton

Admittedly, I am not a Vikings fan. Indeed, I most enjoy Sundays when the Vikings are playing, because the city is mine. I obviously did not support using tax dollars for the new stadium. Despite all of the pretty pictures from fancy angles that the Star Tribune publishes, from the ground level or from the highway, the stadium looks more like a big, black pole barn that is a blight on the Minneapolis skyline. I thought I might speak out on behalf of others who feel the same.

I'm elated but not surprised that my friend — progressive champion Ilhan Omar — won her DFL primary election on Tuesday. She's exactly the positive, unifying voice that Minnesota — and, frankly, the country — needs right now.

The fact that a little girl living in a refugee camp, dreaming of making a kinder world for everyone, could grow up to lead a spectacularly diverse, inclusive legislative campaign in Minnesota — and win! — is proof that our democracy works.

But as Omar knows, it can work better in many ways.

One way: with a voting system — ranked-choice voting or RCV — that eliminates vote-splitting, instead allowing communities of color to express support for multiple candidates.

And RCV ensures consensus outcomes. Omar's 41 percent victory in a three-way race was truly impressive — no other candidate could have topped it — but I'm convinced it doesn't reflect the breadth of her support. Our clunky plurality system deprived her of the majority mandate she and her bridge-building campaign earned.

RCV would have allowed supporters of all three DFL candidates to identify a second choice in the primary. It would have given voters more voice and more power, and it would have given Omar a space to articulate common ground with loyalists of both of her opponents — Mohamud Noor and state Rep. Phyllis Kahn.

Let's embrace a political reform that cultivates more Ilhan Omars and that allows them — in rich, lively multicandidate races — to take office with a mandate when they've earned it.

The writer, a DFLer, represents District 63.

D.J. Tice implies strongly that those against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements since the 1990s, from all parts of the political spectrum, are ignorant and trapped in a fortress mind-set ("Antiglobalism: A bipartisan affliction," Aug. 7). Inadvertently or quite deliberately, Tice decries lack of nuanced understanding of trade by completely ignoring the focus — and nuance — in major arguments against these trade deals. He interchanges "free trade" deals and foreign trade as if they are exactly the same thing; he avoids entirely the arguments against those parts of these deals, particularly the TPP, that give corporations major power and benefits that are all about profits and control, rather than about "trade" — free or otherwise.

That is unfair of Tice, since corporations have worked doggedly in secret negotiations to ensure that these deals include clauses that give pharmaceutical companies new monopoly rights, limiting the ability of those subject to these agreements (us, in other words) to benefit from lower-cost generic drug options. He belittles the strenuous efforts of gas, oil and mining companies to ensure that efforts to protect our planet from climate change cannot affect them.

Corporations have worked hard with government negotiators across three administrations to move toward agreements that will allow them to assert pre-eminent rights if local or national policies have even the potential to harm their profits. Of course, since all parties to negotiations want to limit our awareness of these anticompetitive and antidemocratic provisions, perhaps Tice is aiding rather than belittling those efforts by completely ignoring such provisions. He certainly belittles those fighting these agreements by ignoring the real problems of these provisions. Rather than honestly presenting either the agreements or major arguments against them, Tice drops all nuance to paint all opposition to trade deals as "ignorant" or "incoherent." It is not, and the TPP should be rejected.

• • •

Like Eich, I have enjoyed many wonderful trips to our lovely national parks over the years with my family. Both of my sons, along with my husband, are Eagle Scouts, so you can imagine that we do indeed love the outdoors. In fact, each of us has climbed Grand Teton in Wyoming. Truly a highlight for us!

However, going to the national parks is not better than Disney World; it is just different. My family has also been lucky enough to have very special memories at Disney. We have run marathons, have had lovely meals and have enjoyed many outstanding activities. If you think Disney is just about Space Mountain or Tomorrowland, then you don't know Disney. In fact, one of my sons was so touched by Disney that he is now a cast member on the sales and marketing team at Hong Kong Disneyland. For him, he is truly living his dream!

So please do not be narrow-minded and compare by saying one choice is better than the other — please don't judge. Both are wonderful places, and both are great choices to create special family memories that will last a lifetime.

An Aug. 12 letter writer defends the Star Tribune and the media in general for reporting what Donald Trump says: "They repeat what he said. This is called journalism, not bias."

How about having some journalist question Hillary about how she intends to use government to change these "deep-seated religious beliefs?"