World News

Letters: How to handle Thornton’s thirst (11/22/20) – The Denver Post


How to handle Thornton’s thirst

Re: “Pipeline rejection by Larimer County could reduce Thornton’s future growth,” Nov. 15 news story

No one in Larimer County contests Thornton’s rights to Poudre River water — but they must convey it through our county without compromising the property rights of Larimer residents. It’s their water, but it’s our dirt. We believe that the best conveyance is the Poudre River. If they have doubts about the usability of water from some point that is downstream of their current point of diversion, any concerns about water quality are best addressed by negotiations with Larimer County and its communities. Until Thornton abandons its bullying litigation, a total lack of progress toward resolving the impasse is assured.

Jim McCauley, Fort Collins

To continue to grow population beyond the “carrying capacity” of our water, energy and resources illustrates the height of intellectual arrogance in Colorado, as well as the rest of the United States.

Exponential growth in Denver imitates the growth of a cancer cell. It, too, continues to grow aberrantly until it kills its host. Such growth will crush our wilderness, destroy our mountains, stomp on our quality of life and kill our standard of living. It will ensure breathing toxic air 24/7 by all residents, endless gridlocked traffic and total ruination of weekend camping or ski trips into the mountains.

Exactly why does any mayor, governor or city council want to bring that upon the citizens of this state? Can you give one good reason to bequeath such a miserable future upon future generations? And, where do you think it will all end when that last drop of water is squeezed out of the mountains?

Frosty Wooldridge, Golden

Election analysis from the columnists

Re: “It was a drubbing for the GOP” and “Blue wave, what blue wave?” Nov. 15 commentaries

All you need to know about the difference between the two political parties can be found in their competing reviews of the 2020 election. Ian Silverii used his column to describe the ideas that got the Democrats over the finish line, while George Brauchler focused on future redistricting to save the day for the Republicans.

Colin Callahan, Denver

George Brauchler correctly noted that the expected “blue wave” did not occur. He celebrated Lauren Boebert’s success in winning the U. S. House seat for Colorado District 3. While Boebert’s win surprised me, she won her contest fair and square and thus has earned the right to serve her constituents. My concern was his comments about John Hickenlooper’s decisive win over Sen. Cory Gardner. Note that Brauchler contradicts himself: He notes there was no blue wave; the huge anti-Trump vote did not happen, but Hick beat Gardner by a large margin. Hickenlooper beat Gardner on his own merit. Hickenlooper was a successful and popular Denver mayor and Colorado governor and has earned Coloradan’s trust. Brauchler stated on the topic of Gardner’s loss: “… lost by a large margin to a candidate who … I just cannot go there … but you get the point.” No, Mr. Brauchler, I don’t get the point. What I get is an ignorant and disrespectful attitude.

Jim Rankin, Highlands Ranch

Pointing fingers in the assault on democracy

Re: “The Republican Party is attacking democracy,” Nov. 15 commentary

Why is requesting a review of voting legality in a few states an attack on the 2020 election? Didn’t Stacey Abrams call for recounts and question votes etc. in her governor run in Georgia? No foul was called on her by the press.

All the Republican action is legal and if we are concerned about free elections, what is wrong with a few checks that are within the law and will identify any violations in voting. Let the chips fall where they may.

If everything is found to be legal or minor discrepancies, what a great way to instill confidence in our system.

Perhaps an article for The Post to run would be the one titled “Let the transition Proceed” by Charles Lipson last week in The Wall Street Journal. That article sets a better tone with regard to Joe Biden’s “let’s work together” than The Post article “The Republican Party is attacking democracy.”

But maybe The Post’s intent isn’t to bring people together, but rather to convert people to their perception.

Kenneth E. Toombs, Highlands Ranch

Your headline in Perspective made me laugh. After Trump was elected in 2016, the Democrats tried to undermine that election by lying for years about Russian collusion and their reasons for impeachment. Funny, we never saw the headline, “The Democratic Party is attacking democracy,” during all that time.

Carol Czaplinski, Golden

Diving into the Electoral College debate

Re: “Abandoning the Electoral College,” Nov. 15 editorial

Regarding your editorial last Sunday, I particularly liked the sentence:

“Today, the unintended consequence of the Electoral College is to preserve the power of white voting blocs while diluting the voice of more diverse urban centers in America.” White voting blocs, in this case, include entire states, like Wyoming. How embarrassing.

The only objection I have to your statement is the word “unintended.” If it is not intended, why has Congress not revised the number of seats in the House of Representatives for nine decades? The last time it came with the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act, when the Republican-controlled Congress arrived at the 435 seat number using 1910 census data. The 1920 numbers weren’t to their liking because of the shift in population to urban centers following “The Great Migration” during and after World War I.

Increasing the number of House seats proportionately to distribution and increases in population would address the dilution of voting power that exists for urban voters. Adding 100-plus seats in the House, per the proposed “Wyoming Rule,” would add 100-plus electors to the anemic Electoral College. If Congress won’t do this, the Electoral College has to go. It is a racist embarrassment.

Aren’t we as a nation better than this?

Pete Simon, Arvada

Colorado approved Proposition 113 as an alternative to the current Electoral College allocation method. This was presented as the only choice between the status quo (Option 1) and the popular vote (Option 2). However, there is an Option 3 already in place in Nebraska and Maine that perhaps should have been in the mix.

This alternative assigns two of each state’s electoral votes based on the popular vote statewide, similar to the vote for its senators. The remaining electoral votes are assigned based on the popular vote in each individual congressional district, reflecting the district’s unique urban, suburban rural or demographic character. While this allocation does not follow a national popular vote, it does reflect the fact that most states are mix of such characteristics that should have their own democratic voice in an election.

The editorial indirectly recognized this mix. As this debate continues, can we throw Option 3 into the hopper? This method seems to work very well for these two states. However, it is a compromise. (What a novel idea.)

John and Joanne Tobin, Evergreen

How can a venerable publication like The Denver Post, which prides itself as being “The Voice of the Rocky Mountain Empire” be so ill-informed and misguided in advocating for and promoting a popular vote for presidential elections? The claim that “Each vote for president in America should count as one vote” — while itself true — overlooks the fact that a popular vote would essentially negate all citizen votes in this and other regions. The Electoral College, a stroke of genius by our Founding Fathers, keeps people from all states “in the game.”

Curtis E. Burton, Highlands Ranch

The maps of election results for president for the second straight election show a large majority of the geographical country voting Republican and the vast majority of the inner-city populations of cities like New York voting Democratic.

Our country’s “civil war” is not just liberal vs. conservative. It is very much large-city urbanites vs. everyone else. It’s obvious just looking at results on a map: Washington state is liberal — no, it’s not, Seattle and other urban areas overpower the rest of the state. Look at New York State vs. New York City, along with the election maps of Georgia and Texas. Colorado is not “blue” — but the Denver/Boulder corridor is — and that makes much of the rest of the state irrelevant. If we want “fairness” in our culturally diverse nation, I have a completely different suggestion. Instead of eliminating the Electoral College, let’s require all states to set up an internal Electoral College. What do you say Grand Junction, Greeley and Cortez? Do you want to be relevant in Colorado politics?

Mark Harvey, Arvada

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Source: Read Full Article