Can someone please tell Mayor Brandon Johnson to stop digging deeper the hole that he is currently in with voters? From unceremoniously throwing out Dr. Allison Arwady after she helped guide the city of Chicago through the deadly pandemic, to backpedaling on a stated campaign promise to not shake down citizens for more tax revenue, our mayor seems hellbent on not making the fifth floor of City Hall his home for more than one term.
No mayor in memory has been as tone-deaf as our current one. His refusal to break a promise on getting rid of the ShotSpotter system that voters in high-crime areas demanded be kept in place, pales in comparison to the one that he is breaking that will heap more financial weight on those already sinking in property debt.
If one did not know better, they would think that in order to stave off the bitter taste of possible defeat during the next mayoral election, the mayor will simply not run for reelection. That is the only way to make sense of his current actions, which come off as simply angry and defiant in the face of criticism and questioning.
— Ephraim Lee, Chicago
Why it matters that we vote
Regarding Mayor Brandon Johnson, were we:
Lied to? (Check.) Hoodwinked? (Check.) Subjected to bait and switch? (Check.)
I’m comfortable complaining because I was one of the 39% who voted in the runoff election. Your vote counts. Don’t sit home. Vote early or on Election Day. Take a snack!
— Wendy Smith, Chicago
Targeting of mayor is unfair
I take exception with the editorial that maintains that Mayor Brandon Johnson “must” return Lil Durk’s campaign contribution (“Johnson must return the money he got from Lil Durk, now accused in murder-for-hire scheme,” Oct. 28). Many politicians have taken money from individuals who went on to be convicted of felonies. I do not recall ever hearing that a politician gave money back to a convicted felon.
Johnson’s contribution came from an individual who has only been accused of a felony. While it may be a huge public relations blunder for Johnson not to return the money to Lil Durk, it seems that the mayor is being held to a higher standard.
Given the circumstances, the mayor probably has already decided to give back the donation. Still, Johnson has survived so many public relations nightmares that keeping the rapper’s money may be considered just another mayoral misstep soon to be forgotten.
— Terry Takash, Western Springs
No endorsement for president
I have been a Tribune subscriber for more than 50 years, even though I lean a little more left than the editorials present. However, I have seen the Tribune’s editorial voice moderate over the years, and so I have generally been supportive.
Apparently, I missed the announcement in 2022 from the Tribune’s owner that the Tribune Editorial Board would no longer endorse for president. This is after the board copped out in 2016 and endorsed the libertarian candidate because it couldn’t bring itself to endorse Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, despite the stark differences in the two candidates.
And here we are in 2024, facing the most consequential election ever in American history. And the editorial board remains silent on the presidential election. Trump is a known entity. We barely survived his first term, and voters made that clear when they voted for Joe Biden in 2020, whom the board endorsed.
During the four years Biden has been president, Trump has continued to promote lies about the outcome of that election, incite hatred, promote racism and hold increasingly unhinged rallies. He is a convicted felon and has some serious charges still pending against him, which he hopes to extinguish if he becomes president. He has made it clear that his next term as president will be all about retribution and revenge.
I hope Tribune ownership will reconsider its decision not to allow the board to endorse a presidential candidate. There is absolutely no question who the qualified candidate is here.
Because I am so disappointed with the Tribune, I am canceling my subscription.
— Becky Mills, Park Ridge
Let’s stop the name-calling
On April 9, 1865, when Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered, effectively ending the Civil War, Union Gen. Ulysses Grant introduced him to his staff. As Lee shook hands with Grant’s military secretary, Ely Parker, a Seneca Indian, Lee stared at Parker’s features and said, “I am glad to see one real American here.” Parker replied, “We are all Americans.”
Many of us today are disgusted by the identity politics and divisive rhetoric used so much now by those in government and in the media to polarize and control us in the pursuit of their self-interests. Race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and religious and political beliefs do not define us or make us different from one another in the ways that really count, because we are all Americans. So, let’s stop with the name-calling and hateful rhetoric that at the very least has resulted in two recent assassination attempts on a former president and in dishonor to 6 million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust and their survivors by the ridiculous and reckless insinuation that anyone in our culture is anywhere near as evil and destructive as someone like Adolf Hitler.
— Charles Michael Sitero, Ormond Beach, Florida
More Top Picks Best Log Drums
What happens in a theocracy
Regarding the op-ed “Christians’ comparison of Trump to Cyrus the Great is hopelessly flawed” (Oct. 28): The same Christians who compare Donald Trump to Cyrus are probably also promoting Christian nationalism. For a sample of how well the coupling of church and state works, one need only look at the main players in the Middle East. Iran and Israel are now theocracies. We know how repressive and controlling Iran has become under the ayatollahs. Under its present right-wing ultra-religious government, Israel is now committing genocide.
It seems that in blending religion with the state, both religion and state are perverted. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing in insisting the two remain separate. Americans should heed their wisdom.
— M. Wright, Evanston
Ranked choice voting benefits
As an advocate of ranked choice voting, I was thrilled to see the Tribune’s endorsement of the Oak Park ranked choice voting referendum (“Quick takes on ballot referendums in Skokie, Oak Park, Glencoe and, sigh, on a giveaway for the Chicago Bears,” Oct. 27). What stood out to me in the endorsement was that the board correctly notes that elections for the trustees will use proportional representation, or proportional ranked choice voting. It’s a bit wonky, but I’d love to use this opportunity to explain more about what that means and why PRCV is so great for the places that use multiwinner races.
In Oak Park, the winning threshold will be 25% plus one when candidates are competing for multiple seats. This is the exact number of votes required to fill all seats, while also ensuring no additional candidates can earn enough votes to cross the threshold. After three candidates win 25% of the votes plus one, no other candidate can.
This threshold ensures both majority rule and minority voice. In our current system, minority groups that make up a significant portion of the electorate, yet are still a minority, get shut out. They can never win, or they get told, “Wait your turn,” because if there are too many candidates from a particular group or viewpoint, they split the support of that portion of the community and can never get a foot in the door. With ranked choice voting, several similarly aligned candidates can run, and votes will coalesce around the one with the most support from that constituency. There’s no fear of vote-splitting, and minor parties or demographic groups get fair representation on the village board.
Ranked choice voting lets us have the best of all worlds. We can get lots of choices on the ballot, because good candidates are not discouraged from running, lest they be a spoiler. At the same time, candidates must earn the multiseat equivalent of majority support — a significant threshold of more than 25%, even if there are many candidates splitting the initial vote. Voters don’t have to play mind games with strategic voting and can support all the candidates they like. And minority views get fair representation on the board.
This will be a positive change for Oak Park if passed, but many government bodies in Illinois also use multiwinner races. This is a reform that could benefit municipalities across the state should they choose it in the future.
— Rebecca Williams, Willowbrook
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].