Regarding the Oct. 30 news article “Trump railed against mail-in voting. Millions are still doing it”:
More than 60 million Americans voted early in person or through the mail in this year’s elections. The high early turnout wasn’t driven just by voter angst or anger over high gas prices or the war in Iran. People cast early ballots because of convenience and efficiency. Early voting should be encouraged and expanded.
I have voted by mail for decades because my job affects my availability to drive to my local polling place and wait in line. Rather than risk being unable to vote in person, I review my mail-in ballot at my home. This way, I have the time to carefully review the candidates and proposals, and drop my ballot in a conveniently located mailbox.
In today’s increasingly digital world, early voting should be made even easier with electronic voting. This would also probably increase voter participation. If I can submit my tax return and pay my bills online, why can’t I vote online?
It is bad enough that voters have to choose from a weak slate of candidates and endure endless political commercials during election season. Let’s reduce the time we spend voting and switch to online ballots.
Glenn Easton, Chevy Chase
Reform campaign finance rules
Regarding the Oct. 28 online news article “The sharp divide in how Democrats and Republicans get campaign cash”:
I used to oppose campaign spending limits because I believed donors should have the right to spend as much money as they wanted on elections. Not so anymore.
The war in Iran, tariffs and inflation have driven up the cost of just about everything. Not surprisingly, the cost of political campaigns has been driven up this year as well.
Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, so $446 million in midterm election spending is little more than a drop in the bucket for him. But how much money is too much when one person can spend this unprecedented sum in an attempt to influence the outcome of our elections?
I hope the next Congress makes campaign finance reform a priority.
Denny Freidenrich, Laguna Beach, California
Iran plans
Regarding the Oct. 29 news article “In outreach, Vance offers Tehran humanitarian aid”:
I learned from my deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan that nothing fast-tracks a military quagmire like following a road map to an unachievable or unsustainable peace.
Supporters of further military action believe it would weaken Iran’s nuclear capabilities, open shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and reduce Iranian influence in the region. Those are laudable goals. However, further military escalation by itself is not a strategy, especially if such action results in prolonging a destabilizing stalemate.
Americans have all seen in other conflicts how quickly military objectives can overreach, collide with political realities and produce unintended consequences. This is what drives the distance between the expectations of policymakers and the hard realities that often follow. The U.S. military’s capabilities to inflict further damage on Iran are not in doubt. But, minus an unappealing large-scale ground invasion, action alone will not result in the destruction or capitulation of the Iranian regime.
As the United States climbs this escalation ladder, Washington needs to explain how additional military action will lead to a sustainable peace and a more secure regional order. Otherwise, it risks eroding confidence in American leadership and influence. Our allies and our adversaries watch American judgment as closely as they watch American power.
Frank Disimino, Takoma Park
California’s property tax warning
The Oct. 30 editorial “Property tax rage is justified. These ballot measures are not” should have also addressed the impact that property tax limits have on the production of new housing.
In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, which rolled back existing property assessments in the state, limited tax rate increases and exempted reassessment until a property was sold. Before the proposition was passed, California law required that private property be reassessed to its full value each year. Given the rapid escalation in home values in much of the state, this meant that even if tax rates were reduced or remained constant, homeowners faced dramatic property tax increases.
The consequences were devastating for California home buyers. Existing homeowners were reluctant to move because their assessments stayed low only until they sold. This deprived the housing market of supply. And cities and counties had to rely more on fees to compensate for the loss of property tax revenue. That meant that new housing was more expensive. I hope that voters in states that considered property tax limits took what happened in California as a warning.
Michael S. McGill, Alexandria
D.C.’s Halloween scare
Regarding the Oct. 31 Metro article “It’s a bird, it’s a plane … and it’s abjectly scary after 9/11”:
For the president of the United States to order his aircraft to fly over a White House Halloween party is absolutely ridiculous. This thoughtless stunt alarmed many Washingtonians, especially those of us who were here on 9/11. It also inconvenienced travelers and airline personnel, for no good reason and at substantial cost.
One expects to see stunt planes at air shows, but not over the severely restricted airspace of our nation’s capital. Of course, obtaining a presidential jet from Qatar was a pretty big stunt in and of itself.
Diane B. Norton, Fairfax
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post I bank online. I pay taxes online. Why can’t I vote online? appeared first on Washington Post.
