Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to mail@austinchronicle.com. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    Michael King opines that the Chronicle is frankly an advocacy publication, generally “left-liberal” or “progressive” in perspective [“Point Austin: Look If You Like …,” News, Oct. 17]. I had to choke that statement down after reading the gushing election endorsement for the 28-year county clerk; simultaneously insulting the alternative Green and Libertarian party’s candidates as “token.”
    The integrity of our elections is a non-partisan issue: Every citizen must be able to verify their vote was counted as cast; must have the right to view their vote counted at the polling station on election night. I propose a voter-marked, hand-counted paper ballot system: a time tested, verifiable, and transparent method completely open and observable by the public.
    County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir, after touting for years the security of the current electronic voting system, is now proposing a hybrid system of electronic and paper, utilizing open source software – it won’t be ready until after the 2016 presidential elections.
    Unfortunately, it makes no difference if the software is open source because votes would be counted out of public view; the average voter would have to rely on computer experts to assess the security of the system. We can save millions by scrapping the secret vote counting electronics for the integrity of a hand-counted paper ballot.
    Elections are not about trust, a perception that everything is fine: Our government was established with checks and balances; elections must rely implicitly on distrust. Electronic voting systems have the documented capability of hacking thousands of votes, invisibly and non-detected. A paper ballot fraud scheme would be revealed easily at the precinct vote count. All citizens must know that each politician we vote for is, in fact, duly elected. The issues of our times are too important to rely on convenience instead of confidence.

Dear Editor,
    I think the rail line proposed in Prop. 1 is more an amusement park ride and is more an effort by which developers, construction firms, and elected officials can plunder the state’s Rainy Day Fund than it is a serious effort to alleviate the traffic congestion that afflicts Austin [“Proposition 1,” News, Oct. 17]. If people want to really do something to relieve traffic congestion, we should bite the bullet and realize that it would be much more effective, much more environmentally benign, and much less costly if we simply left our cars parked at home, started getting into one another’s vehicles, and started practicing ridesharing on a massive level. Incentives should be provided to encourage people to do so – commuter lanes, better parking places, reduced fees, pats on the back, and jubilant “attaboys!” Those who don’t wish to participate, who insist on driving their cars solo, should expect to pay for the privilege and for the congestion that they are contributing to.

   [Editor's Note: It's confusing, but there are in fact two transportation "Prop. 1's" on the ballot – neither of them actually identified as "Prop. 1." The first is a "Proposed (state) Constitutional Amendment" that would allow use of the Rainy Day Fund for highway projects. The city of Austin's "Prop. 1" (identified on the ballot only as "Proposition, City of Austin") is the city's rail and road bond proposition. Both supporters and opponents have been informally referring to these as "State Prop. 1" and "Local Prop. 1" – they are separate, distinct items on the ballot. Additionally confusing: There are three Austin Community College propositions – Prop. 1, Prop. 2, and a third tax rate proposal called only "Proposition." For more information, see the Chronicle's "Endorsements" page.]

Dear Editor,
    What a tepid, somewhat ridiculous endorsement of the City of Austin's Proposition (aka "Local Prop. 1") in last week's Chronicle [“Proposition 1,” News, Oct. 17]. The editorial board admits "some of us argue that the former [the route chosen] is wrong and the latter [the city's planning process] has been bungled." Both (the wrongness of the chosen route and the bungled planning process) are indisputably true – yet an endorsement is the result. Rail advocates like myself, and many, many others are not waiting "for a perfect consensus" – we are working for just a better one that takes citizen voices and preferences into account. And we know the next rail plan "will inevitably be better and more politically viable" – because we are already advancing that plan (a route on Guadalupe-North Lamar). Thankfully, elections are decided by individual voters – and not the "many local progressive organizations" that are the "broad-based support" mentioned in the endorsement (which are, to a great extent, made up of the same individuals who run from one endorsement meeting to the next). The individual voters are well aware that "the wrong route" selected by a “bungled” process is before them, and will vote accordingly. Too bad the Chronicle got this one so wrong, after pointing out its fatal flaws.