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

•••

Readers should be aware of a major omission in the counterpoint by James Dickey, representing the Minnesota Voters Alliance, in which he attempts to "prove" there are major integrity issues with the way absentee ballots are handled in Minnesota ("Election cheating in Minnesota is easier than the secretary of state says," Opinion Exchange, Sept. 2). He lays out the arguments his firm will use, citing statutes and administrative rules, when it addresses the state Supreme Court to establish there is a conflict between the statute and rules regarding signature requirements for absentee voting. However, he neglects to tell us that the Appeals Court ruled unanimously against these arguments. The Star Tribune reported in August that "Appeals Court judges agreed with the state, saying the statute requires signature comparison 'only when there is an identification-number discrepancy.' The judges agreed that rules from the Secretary of State's Office giving further guidance to election officials do not conflict with the statute." In other words, Dickey's arguments totally failed to convince any judge on the Appeals Court the administrative rule needs to be changed by the secretary of state.

The Minnesota Voters Alliance has a right to appeal the Appeals Court's unanimous ruling but the chances for success look slim. Dickey's long-winded, convoluted commentary might fool some readers in thinking it has substance, but sadly, it is another example of misinformation used to sow doubts about Minnesota's election system.

Katherine Tomsich, North Oaks

•••

It seems that the ruckus over election procedures and their abuse has reached a level of absurdity where folks are ignoring the historical record and the whole purpose of voting rules and procedures. The recent arguments from Secretary of State Steve Simon and James Dickey over mail-in ballot signatures is a perfect example.

In fact, almost all questions on past election results were because of error which was subsequently discovered and rectified. So those truly seeking to "improve the integrity of elections," which most take to mean improved accuracy and availability, would do well to look at the actual source of the biggest election integrity impediment: errors and mistakes. How do you reduce error in a large process? You keep it simple so that the people using it and administering it can do so without question or confusion. This is a long-established primary principle in business processes; just ask all the consultants and COOs. Recent efforts by many to implement all kinds of new rules and restrictions and add complex validation procedures to elections are just working against their own stated goal.

The true ability of scattered individuals to successfully swing an election by forging registrations or ballots, stuffing drop boxes, etc., is practically impossible. The ability of a large coordinated group to do so would also fail since it violates the rule that the ability to keep a conspiracy a secret is inversely proportional to the number holding that secret — i.e., in a bigger group, someone will blab.

You really want to swing an election? You need to do it at a systemic level. That means employing all the methods of massive voting machine tampering, ballot box theft, etc., that were recently trotted out regarding the 2020 election. Of course, that just turned out to be phantom fraud. Indeed, even the "Mission Impossible" team couldn't pull such a thing off against our current system of check and controls. On the other hand, you really want to know the will of the people? Make it highly convenient and a cinch for them to vote so they do so in larger numbers — simple and easy processes and rules.

This useless nitpicking over signature rules is only one of many red herrings that calls into question the recent batch of armchair election reformers' stated vs. intended purpose.

Dennis Fazio, Minneapolis

Stephen Mahle, Golden Valley

•••

A true Iron Lady: Imagine her performing her duty, receiving the new British prime minister, days before she died.

Joel Carter, Minneapolis

•••

This fascination can't be chalked up to cult of personality. The royals have none. Reserve goes with the job — if, indeed, sparks of character haven't been (in)bred out of them. The most stellar of the recent crop, Princess Diana, wasn't personally interesting. Her appeal was that she seemed "nice." We projected onto her our belief she might be pleasant to one of her vast inferiors given the remote possibility of a chance encounter.

At best silly, our royal obsession exposes a deeper flaw in the national character. We believe in something for nothing. We prefer royalty to reality on the chance our own lives could be swept up into it and released from useful toil. This frailty makes us susceptible to swindle and lottery and televangelism, to entertainment by Kardashian and rule by Donald Trump.

It's possible a dull, shambling King Charles III might put paid to the whole ridiculous enterprise.

Mark Warner, Minneapolis

•••

In 1947, on her 21st birthday, four years before being crowned Queen of England, she said this from South Africa:

"I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service."

Over 2,000 years ago, another leader shared with us his views on serving others:

"But Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that the rulers of the heathen lord it over them and that their great ones have absolute power? But it must not be so among you. No, whoever among you wants to be great must become the servant of you all, and if he wants to be first among you he must be your slave — just as the Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life to set many others free.'"

Queen Elizabeth was great because she did devote her life to the service of others for 70 years. The queen did not come to be served, but to serve, and serve she did.