Letters to the Editor: Gerrymandering is just as bad as attempts to manipulate voters

To the editor: If the allegations are true, the effort by people associated with Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign to recruit another Dan Sullivan to run against Alaska’s Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan deserves condemnation as an attempt to confuse voters (“Justice Department issues new subpoenas over Alaska spoiler candidate controversy,” Oct. 29). But those who condemn that tactic should apply the same democratic standard to partisan gerrymandering.

Widespread partisan gerrymandering is the more serious threat to self-government. Its goal is to render as many of the opposition party’s votes as possible meaningless by packing its voters into a few districts or splitting them among districts where they are outnumbered. Voter deception seeks to distort an individual choice. Gerrymandering seeks to distort the system and preserve that distortion across elections.

Its deepest offense is not simply giving one party an unfair advantage. It is making it harder for voters to remove the politicians responsible. Voters may recognize the manipulation, oppose it, and still struggle to overcome boundaries designed to weaken their influence.

Neither practice becomes acceptable because the other exists. The principle should be consistent: Voters should choose their representatives, not have their choices manipulated by those seeking to gain or retain power.

Terry Hansen, Grafton, Wis.

..

To the editor: A Justice Department lawsuit directed by the current occupant of the White House went down in flames when U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason determined that its demands were infeasible (“Judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to block certification of Alaska Senate race if GOP incumbent loses,” Nov. 1). In addition, she wrote that those demands would violate voters’ rights.

President Trump insisted Alaskans would be confused by the word “incumbent,” basically insulting Alaskans by insinuating they are not sharp enough to read. Perhaps it was Trump who needed the word “incumbent” explained to him.

Mary Peltola’s campaign hailed the ruling, reiterating that the campaign had nothing to do with the second Dan Sullivan’s ballot entry. Since Peltola had good chances according to the polls, it makes no sense that she would feel compelled to cheat. One would be more suspicious of someone who was desperate to stop a Democratic win for the Senate, such as the incumbent Sullivan or Trump.

The incumbent Sullivan immediately accused Peltola of lying without a shred of evidence. Those are grounds for a defamation suit, but Peltola is much too classy to stoop to their level.

Marcy Bregman, Agoura Hills

..

To the editor: In the controversy over the Alaska Senate race, I’ve not seen it mentioned that, because the state uses ranked-choice voting, if a voter were actually confused about “Dan S. Sullivan” versus “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.,” they could vote for either one as their No. 1 choice and the other as their No. 2. If they vote for Dan S. Sullivan the Republican incumbent as No. 1, that’s what they intended. If they happen to vote for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., who is listed with no party nor occupation, as No. 1 and then voted for Dan S. Sullivan as their No. 2 pick, the Republican incumbent would receive their vote very early in the process, when the so-called “spoiler” is eliminated.

That’s how ranked-choice voting works: There’s no such thing as a wasted vote or a spoiler candidate.

Randall Gellens, San Diego