Letters to the Editor, today's NYTimes.Are the Greens Pure, or Elitist?[T] o the Editor:"A Gray Future for California Voters," by Clancy Sigal (Op-Ed, Oct. 17), points out the twisted logic of Green voters who loathe our corrupt two-party system and are willing to destroy it at the expense of the most vulnerable.In 2000 Mr. Sigal voted for Ralph Nader and now loses sleep because of what happened. I voted for Mr. Nader in 1996, but I decided that he was not worthy of my vote in 2000 after he said that it would be O.K. if a loss by Al Gore resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade because women could always travel to a pro-choice state like New York to get a safe, legal abortion.Good for Mr. Sigal for rejecting this elitist attitude on the part of Greens who are willing to ignore the plight of those who would suffer under a Republican agenda. EMILY FEINERNyack, N.Y., Oct. 17, 2002? To the Editor:"A Gray Future for California Voters," by Clancy Sigal (Op-Ed, Oct. 17), echoes many other contributors to the bitter debate between Democrats and Greens by ignoring the one reform that would end the need for this argument and make our elections more democratic. That reform is instant runoff voting, a system in which voters rank their candidates, allowing a No. 2 preference to be counted if a voter's No. 1 choice can't achieve a majority.This eliminates the "spoiler" problem while still allowing voters to express their true choices, instead of being frightened into voting for a poor candidate just because a worse one might win.Leftists, liberals and anyone else who loves democracy should concentrate on winning this reform rather than continuing the pointless bickering over who is more pure and who more pragmatic. JAKE WERNERChicago, Oct. 17, 2002