Jim Fossel’s column (“We need more conservative referendum efforts,” June 23) relies on tortured logic. His arguments against the National Popular Vote apply equally to the current Electoral College system of choosing a president: 1) no single governmental entity tallies the popular vote, and 2) voting criteria differ from state to state. Why are those factors fatal when it comes to the popular vote but OK for the Electoral College?

He urges gun rights advocates to go after the recently enacted state background check law without even trying to make the case why that law is bad. It expands a sound federal policy of requiring background checks on purchases made at licensed gun dealers to those made at gun shows and other private sales. Why is it a bad idea to find out if a would-be gun owner has a background that should stop the purchase, e.g., a convicted violent felon or a convicted domestic abuser? Fossel may be too young to remember when even the NRA supported background checks.

As for voter IDs, I don’t have a big problem with that so long as the kinds of IDs accepted are not cherry-picked so as to make it harder for certain demographic groups to vote, as has been done in some Republican-controlled states. For example, accept a hunting license but don’t accept a college ID.

That there aren’t as many conservative groups pushing referenda as liberals one may be because “conservative” ideas have less broad support among Mainers.

Robert Howe
Brunswick

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter: Question insurance company investments

Next »

Letter: Climate change should inform your vote