Last Tuesday, I attended a hearing that resulted in two qualified congressional candidates being refused a place on my November ballot. Now, I must choose between a Republican and the sitting congressman’s favorite staffer, who has worked tirelessly alongside her boss to disqualify meaningful competition for his seat.
I happen to know something about being an outsider candidate. At the age of 23, I ran for mayor of my college town. Even though I had zero political experience and even less credibility, I was allowed on the ballot. I didn’t have to collect an onerous number of signatures, nor did I incite a cadre of political operatives to push me out.
It was, in fact, the moment in my life when I was most proud to live in a democracy. As I said to friends who saw my picture in the newspaper: “What a country! They’ll give any idiot time on a soapbox to speak their mind.”
Perhaps I was an annoyance to the political elites, but their brand of politics barely motivated a fifth of the population to participate. My candidacy prompted nontraditional voters to give democracy another chance, while I came to appreciate how difficult it is to navigate the minutia of government that doesn’t make flashy headlines. I also realized my own potential to attempt big things that seem impossible at first glance. It transformed me into an effective, lifelong advocate for my fellow citizens and community.
Given that, it is baffling to me just how much time and resources are invested in keeping people off the ballot in Cook County. In England, you have Count Binface, a man who campaigns wearing a metal bin on his head, routinely on the ballot. Has that nation’s democracy fallen apart?
Mayra Macias and Byron Sigcho-Lopez rallied their supporters to collect thousands of signatures to get on the ballot as independents for the 4th Congressional District. Those signatures were then challenged by the same people who favor letting a congressman gift his seat to a staffer. After spending a weekend knocking on the doors of Macias supporters and scheduling time to have a notary verify their signatures, I can assure you that it is tedious, time-intensive work.
This signature nonsense is blatantly undemocratic, effectively allowing political insiders to control ballot access. As I said to the State Board of Elections, it is reprehensible, even if it is the way things are done around here.
— Mike Belle, Cicero
Let go of this race, focus on next
Reading about the race to replace U.S. Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García and the attendant pearl clutching about the process reminds me of a quote by Harold Washington: “Politics ain’t beanbag.”
A congressional term lasts only two years. Those protesting should focus on the next race.
More Top Picks Best Refrigerators
— Peter Vilkelis, Chicago
Cure is worse than the affliction
As a part-time community college American government instructor with only a master’s degree, I claim neither the academic credentials nor the university affiliations of those who wrote “Why the US should consider making voting compulsory” (July 22) — an opinion piece that produced in me a mixture of amusement, anger and disappointment.
Perhaps someone possessing a doctorate in political science with a wicked sense of humor will rebut, point by point, the pronouncements of the authors. Their argument can be restated as follows: Average Americans cannot control what the federal government does, and the solution to this intolerable state of affairs is to greatly expand the reach of the national government by creating more rules that ordinary Americans must follow.
Once, there were educated people in this country who warned of imposing a cure that creates worse outcomes than the malady it was intended to address. I do not believe that there is a consensus among Americans as to the exact nature of our national affliction — let alone anything approaching a general agreement on what should be done about it. If compulsory voting would be so beneficial to average Americans, where is the outcry, from even a minority of the citizenry, for it?
Finally, assuming the first two sentences of the op-ed are intended to be taken literally, we are expected to believe that the political system of the United States has never generated anything wanted by ordinary people. Use of the word “never” in the second sentence disturbs me in particular; if you truly believe the American way of doing political things has been entirely bad since the beginning, tinkering with voting now is a waste of time.
— John Demetralis; Chicago
Compulsory voting a terrible idea
Of all the ideas to come out of the academy, the recent op-ed suggestion by Notre Dame and University of California Berkeley professors and a graduate student to make voting in the United States compulsory is surely among the worst. Even worse is the proposal that mandatory voting be enforced through taxes.
The problem with American government today is not, as the authors argue, the disproportionate influence of a “select” few, but rather a combination of the expansive size and scope of government and voter ignorance and apathy. As the current fashionability of candidates advocating democratic socialism suggests, the country already has too many ill-informed and miseducated potential voters. (Thank you, college professors!)
Forcing those currently too lazy or unmotivated to get off the couch and go to the polls with tax penalties or incentives would only exacerbate the problem.
As the Founders understood, too much democracy is a bad thing, which is why we have representative, and not direct, democracy.
They also understood the dangers of giving too much power to a national government, which is why we have enumerated powers and a 10th Amendment, both sadly neglected.
— David Applegate, Huntley
Op-ed shows that voting matters
“Why the US should consider making voting compulsory” is an excellent op-ed. People complain, but they don’t vote.
Thank you to Susan L. Ostermann, Pradeep Chhibber and Will Halm for pointing to the obvious.
— Ray and Alena Gust, Deer Park
The hope in “Fahrenheit 451”
Jonathan Zimmerman’s op-ed “Texas is right. Everyone should read ‘Fahrenheit 451’” (July 23) extols “Fahrenheit 451” in an educational way yet at the same time doesn’t quite truly see a heartfelt part of the story.
The fireman Guy Montag does indeed come to “recognize the power of reading to inform and enlighten human beings,” but that is only a part of the story. In the novel, those who are revolutionaries camp in caves on the outskirts of the town and tell each other the favorite books that they have committed to memory. Montag does move into a new understanding in the story, and by the end, he, too, has come to remember his favorite book.
To this day, it moves me very deeply in remembering how one of the final parts of the novel is when he decides to tell the others that story when he returns to the caves. There is a true sense of hope in the book that is markedly different from other dystopian-themed stories.
I agree that the novel deserves to be read for what it can teach, yet it also can be recommended for the hope that it conveys, which is something that is very needed at this time in our country.
— Mandy May, Skokie
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].
More Top Picks Can Irlen Syndrome Be Cured Or Only Managed