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

•••

In his May 14 column "National Popular Vote would be popular folly," D.J. Tice does an effective job of delineating some of the problems associated with the National Popular Vote Compact. It is indeed an awkward and probably unsatisfactory proposal. But what Tice passes over is the magnitude of the problem to which the compact is offered as a solution. Twice in this century, individuals have assumed the office of the presidency who were not the choices of the American people. The result has been an increasing lack of respect for the process of electing our president and a loss of legitimacy for the presidency itself.

Maybe the National Popular Vote Compact isn't the solution to the problem of nonplurality presidents, but the problem continues and in these challenging times is only getting worse. We need to more closely examine and improve the solutions that have been proposed and to find new and different ways to ensure that the leader of the United States of America is truly the choice of the American people.

Jon F. Miners, Crystal

•••

I believe there are many flaws in Tice's assertion that the National Popular Vote would be folly, but will offer just two. First is his assertion that "all geographic political districting … reflects this understanding that communities count, denying total power to aggregated at-large majorities." Clearly he is ignoring the many lawsuits brought to challenge gerrymandered decisions that do just that. Second is his assertion that the Electoral College "forces presidents and would-be presidents to concern themselves with diverse concerns." What it does instead is make them feel compelled to focus on states identified as essential to their Electoral College tally.

Cyndy Crist, St. Paul

•••

Tice's column supporting the Electoral College might have made sense up until about 30 years ago. But we are in a much different environment than 1787, when this system was introduced, or decades ago, when we had more reasonable two-party balances or opportunities in governance.

If you're advocating that rights and autonomy should rather be allocated to communities of place, that is already ensconced in the Congress — half of the operational functioning of the government. The difference now is that the country exists in a distributed rural (no longer just agricultural or regional)-vs.-urban division. Also, a national homogenization has evolved in social, economic and cultural focuses. Differentiations today are based on age, economic status, education, social interests and a wide variety of nongeographical attributes, none represented in the Electoral College. The aggregated rural constituency already exercises heavy minority control in the state governments, Senate and Electoral College. The combined urban/suburban areas, where 80% of Americans now live, have been gerrymandered out of influence with no clear way back.

Consider that all states have different interests and sensibilities within their various counties that should likewise garner distinct attention. But we don't elect governors by who wins the most number of counties to assure that. How is that consistent in Tice's thesis?

We can urge reform of the Electoral College, but any reform would only have to include a population-based method to effect any meaningful change. Instability and uncertainty already exist in the current system. After a few rounds of the National Popular Vote Compact, people will accommodate and accept. Then we can shut down the Electoral College properly.

Dennis Fazio, Minneapolis

Although I'm not a DFLer, I wonder why the use of ranked-choice voting in Minneapolis hasn't made the party convention and endorsement process obsolete ("Party endorsement policies fuel convention chaos," May 19).

The Star Tribune should ask RCV advocates like FairVote Minnesota to comment on the latest fiasco and consider whether their support is still valid.

Karl Olson, St. Louis Park

Mary McKee, Minnetonka

It would be helpful for the citizens of Minnesota if the Republican members of Congress from Minnesota would tell us why they did not vote to expel Rep. George Santos, the member from New York who is described by many people as a "serial fabulist." Instead, the House voted to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee.

This is a dodge. Santos achieved his seat in Congress by presenting himself with lies about his origins, his education and his achievements. Why are his lies not repugnant to his Republican colleagues in Congress? I ask Minnesota's Republican representatives — Tom Emmer, Pete Stauber, Michelle Fischbach and Brad Finstad — to explain exactly why Rep. Santos deserves to stay in Congress. Santos' presence as a member of Congress diminishes the standing of all members and the integrity of our government.

Melinda Quivik, St. Paul

Thank you for your recent article on the Humanist organization in Minnesota ("Humanists spread the secular word," May 14). From the beginning of time, there have been people who rejected the policies and power of organized religions. I began wrestling with my mainstream Lutheran faith while in my teens. Later, as a feminist, I could not reconcile the fact that all major religions have male godheads, males as their top human leaders and policies that subordinate women to second-level status. Major religions tend to divide people; Freethinkers/Humanists/Universalists tend to unite people in a common respect for humanity, the Earth and all that is in it — similar to Indigenous/tribal beliefs found around the world.

Many of us fall into both groups because both systems require us to read (a lot), research, stay open-minded to other opinions and be respectful of our differences. Are we who do not follow a single charismatic voice in beliefs or politics, not as valuable as everyone else? (Further reading: "Humanly Possible" by Sarah Bakewell.)