Letters.

• Position: Letter to the Editor

Everyone's State

The letter from Allen Clobridge (September 2000) misses a very important point. Even though all of the nation's voters may have an interest in the outcome of elections in West Virginia, senators and representatives from that state are still constitutionally charged with representing the interests of West Virginia voters. Where these are in conflict with the interests of residents in other states, West Virginians should be confident that their interests will prevail. This may not be the case if their elected representatives are elected with out-of-state money.

Yes, this will occasionally lead to parochialism, but cross-state influence buying by the wealthy hardly seems to offer a solution. (The logical extension of Mr. Clobridge's argument, and one with fewer negative side effects, would be to allow us all to rote in every state.) The solution to parochialism is not to create conflicting loyalties in our elected representatives, but to elect representatives with vision and enough character to act as leaders.

BILL FENTON Alexandria, Va.

Flushed Out

I noticed your short blurb last issue on the virtues of dual flush toilets as a means of saving water. Unfortunately, one of the many disadvantages to the federal 1.6 gallon per flush (GPF) standard is that it essentially precludes such alternatives. If the higher of the two flushes in such toilets exceeds 1.6 GPF, then it doesn't matter that the low flush choice is below 1.6--the toilet is illegal.

One additional point I could have made in my October 1998 article for you on toilets is that federal one-size-fits-all mandates frequently close the door to better ways of addressing the problem to be solved. Indeed, these two-flush toilets were just beginning to catch on in areas of the U.S. with high water rates, but not anymore.

By the way, the next such regulation in the works is a tough new efficiency standard for washing machines, which will make pricey front loaders the dominant and perhaps the only type available before the end of the decade.

BEN LIEBERMAN Washington, DC

False START

There is a significant error in your description of the possibility of cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal should George W. Bush become president. For the last several years, Congress specifically prohibited any reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal until Russia ratified START II, the nuclear reductions treaty.

However, this year, after Russia ratified START II (with some conditions that mean it will...