I understand the burning desire to know the results of the Cook County state’s attorney’s race, but it’s a good time to take a breath. In our pursuit of immediate answers, we are letting paranoia and fear drive the discourse around this year’s primary election. Calling for an overhaul, a consolidation of
election authorities or a reduction in voter access is an outsize reaction to not knowing the results immediately and learning of a human error. There’s been much criticism for a reporting error by the
Chicago Board of
elections about the number of ballots received. Where others are quick to criticize, I want to celebrate and embrace the actions taken by the Board of Elections’ director of public information, Max Bever. Oftentimes, public servants and officials downplay and overlook errors, which fuel distrust in government. Instead, Bever quickly went public, explained the error and admitted he traded “accuracy for speed” to report out numbers. He didn’t double down or try to obfuscate the truth; he owned it. If you care about transparency and good governance, this is exactly what you want public servants to do when errors are made. At some point, we should have a conversation about what we can do to prevent future mistakes and make policy changes. But we will never regulate or consolidate ourselves out of human errors completely. And let’s not just start throwing spaghetti at the wall by suggesting that we should reduce voter access to mail-in voting either. It’s perfectly fine that we don’t know yet who won the primary race. The
Job doesn’t start the day after the election. Still, there is a general election in November, even if it is treated as a foregone conclusion that the
Democratic primary winner will be the victor. Instead, let’s talk about why less than 25% of registered voters in Chicago are casting ballots in such a crucial election. That is despite plenty of voting time and options, particularly in Chicago, where voters had the opportunity to shape Cook County’s criminal justice system and vote on a binding
referendum. Let’s talk about why most people in Illinois don’t have choices for many offices on their ballots and how gerrymandering and winner-take-all elections reduce competition and depress voter turnout. At the very least, let’s stop sharpening the pitchforks. Counting takes time in close races. Meanwhile, our focus ought to be on the reasons for dismal participation in these primary elections. We requested by email mail-in ballots to our
Florida residence before the deadline to do so. They arrived at our house on March 22. Too late to vote! Very disappointed. I recently celebrated my 80th birthday, which puts me in between the ages of the two presumptive presidential nominees. By now, both candidates have secured committed voters. However, a large number of us are not ready to commit. It seems news outlets single out the age factor. People our age have to combat ageism. Younger people also have to deal with it and learn as we did. So, this is why the candidate’s No. 2 is important for both. Successful leadership in business, family and country requires teamwork. This sharing is extremely important. The vice president can complement and implement decisions. In the past, the vice president has not been the deciding factor in the election. But it will be for me and other undecided voters. We noncommitted voters need to decide who to vote for or even whether to vote, so let’s break the logjam with the right team! As a March 22 Tribune article ( ) clearly demonstrates, the city of Chicago, with its denial of protest permits for the vicinity of the 2024 Democratic National Convention, has learned nothing from the disastrous
police riot at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. As quoted in the article, Andy Thayer of the Bodies Outside of Unjust Laws is right: The two-block march route granted by the city, three miles from the convention, is a joke, and no amount of Mayor Brandon Johnson’s trotting out his progressive credentials will change that. And if the Democratic National Committee were truly interested in defending the right to free speech, it would do more than bleat about its alleged commitment to the First Amendment. We who plan to protest at the convention take seriously our right to assemble and speak, and we will not be deterred by officials who have little respect for those rights. I for one plan to travel from Maine to protest the Democratic Party’s complicity in the wanton slaughter of innocent Palestinian civilians, and I have no intention of being corralled into some pastoral site 3 miles from the convention. A recent letter from the executive director of the Illinois Alliance for Retired Americans ( March 16) opines about the importance of medication for Americans. We agree that access to these lifesaving medicines is critically important, but the creation of a government-run health care board is not the answer. In some states that have implemented a prescription drug affordability board, patients have seen limited access to needed drugs and higher costs — the exact opposite of what this flawed proposal promises. This concept has also failed in some countries, for patients who need them most. Under this concept, government bureaucrats set the value of a drug. If a patient cannot obtain a therapy at the prescription drug affordability board price, or if the pharmacy cannot stock it because of the state-mandated price, then the patient loses access. Such a system ignores the reality of negotiated discounted prices, meaning that they review only the wholesale acquisition cost and not the price patients actually pay. Indeed, pharmaceutical manufacturers spend billions of dollars every year to make sure patients can obtain the medicine they need to live. In the
United Kingdom, where the government controls prices in the marketplace, it can take more than a year from the time a drug is approved to the time it is available to patients. Some countries have a delay of more than three years for a
cancer drug to become available. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are committed to policy solutions that help patients, but we must not sacrifice access to medicine for Illinoisans in the process.