Readers write
Multiple problems with ranked choice voting
Ranked choice voting is not the solution to run-off elections. Ranked choice voting is not viable because it is not transparent.
The moving of votes from lower-finishing candidates to higher-finishing candidates is done at election offices. If the winner is not what people or candidates expect, there could be election challenges and constant recounts, which will extend elections, not shorten them. This will also reduce the public confidence in elections and make it harder for the duly elected to govern.
There is also the issue of the time it would take us to vote due to having to mark/rank each candidate. This is prone to error, and if someone does not participate, meaning they only vote for one candidate, and their candidate is not at or near the top, their vote is removed from the voting process, and their voice is not heard. This is in contrast to a run-off, where the voters choose to vote again or not.
A better solution to a multicandidate primary might be that if the leading candidate receives 10% or more votes than the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes, that candidate is declared the winner, even if they did not receive a majority of the votes cast. If the spread between the top two candidates is less than 10%, then you have a traditional run-off to determine the winner.
GARY HENDERSON, MARIETTA
No greater legacy than to champion education
The passing of former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt reminds me of the time when the progressive, pragmatic leader of a big old Southeastern state held up quality public education as the standard by which his state could/would/should go forward.
No student scholarship funds to drain off support for public schools, and no kowtowing to other state priorities with less direct impact on children’s educational achievements and futures.
Providing outstanding public education opportunities is a complicated proposition at every level, but without a persevering champion at a state’s highest level — the governor — the promise of a quality public education that levels the playing field and opens doors to as many as possible remains sadly unrealized.
In the restructuring of our public institutions, which will be necessary post-(President Donald) Trump, let’s remember the legacy of a North Carolina governor.
SYD JANNEY, ATLANTA
John and Sue Wieland helped shape Atlanta
Thank you, AJC, for the front-page story on how “Philanthropy helped shape Atlanta and state,” (AJC, Dec. 21). It featured a picture of the High Museum of Art. If I may, I would like to add the names of John and Sue Wieland, whose names appear on the entrance to The High Museum as among those who helped shape Atlanta.
The same AJC edition mentioned the United Way of Atlanta’s 120th anniversary. When I met John Wieland, he was leading the United Way fundraising effort that year. Over many years, I understand the Wieland family made substantial contributions to Emory University, Habitat for Humanity, Rotary International, United Way, and other important causes. That does not even include his homebuilding business, which built over 30,000 new homes in the Atlanta area and in the Southeast, which is so important now that there is a housing shortage.
No list of philanthropists who shaped Atlanta and the state is complete without including the names of John and Sue Wieland.
DANIEL F. KIRK, KENNESAW
