An ongoing education of the American electorate in ways & means of voting

The 2000 election cycle is the one that taught us about the “hanging chad,” and gave us a crash course in just how subjective the process of counting votes can be, while this is the year we learn of the realities of the Electoral College.
 

BIDEN: Will confirm next month that Trump won

I’m all for anything that gives the public a better comprehension of the processes by which we elect people to public office. Yet it disturbs me that it takes instances of screw-ups for the bulk of us to show any instance in learning the lessons.

I BELIEVE WE’D be better as a society if we put some serious thought into who we choose to hold public office. Yet we don’t. In fact, some of us seriously resent the notion that public office even exists, and that people like me think they ought to be thinking about it.

Seriously, I suspect that most of us remember the term “Electoral College” as something that came up in a high school class taken long ago that they promptly let slip from their memories. I’m sure that upcoming party with a beer keg was more interesting, and the alcoholic consumption probably killed off the brain cells that once contained government details.

So it takes an instance where a presidential candidate takes nearly 2.9 million more votes than her opponent, yet loses under the rules we have in place, to get people to think seriously about the Electoral College – which personally is something I consider to be an obsolete concept.

It was created at a time when the Founding Fathers believed the public (or at least the white, male portion of it) would not know enough to properly pick a president. So they were supposed to pick learned people to represent them, and those people would pick the president.

TRUMP: He and Bush beneficiaries of quirks

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE process has evolved since then into one where the electors are supposed to represent the mood of the people of their state. The electors who gathered in Springfield on Monday were Democratic partisans who made sure Illinois will go into the history books as a sensible place that resisted the rancid rhetoric and twittish Tweets of one Donald J. Trump.

But no one seriously expected any significant numbers of electors to change their stances. I suspect those who were chosen to back Trump’s campaign are taking pride in being able to say they gave us “President Donald J. Trump,” and probably think it was a sense of cosmic justice that their guy “won” despite losing the popular vote!

BUSH: Is he embarrassed by any tie to Trump?

All of this means that come Jan. 6, when Congress holds its joint session to formally affirm the Electoral College count taken Monday, I suspect there will be at least one (probably more) political pundit eager to proclaim the look of depression on Joe Biden’s face (don’t forget, he serves as Senate president) when he has to formally announce that Trump really will be Number 45 in the line of men who served as U.S. president.

Anybody who was paying attention in school would have learned about this lengthy process that leads up to the naming of a new president – although I’m sure there are those for whom this is new.

AND ALSO SOME who are upset that the unofficial vote count from back on Nov. 8 didn’t just make the whole thing official.

CLINTON: How many non-voters overcome Trump?

Just as I’m sure there were people who back in 2000 couldn’t comprehend the need for another vote count to answer questions about the one in Florida that first gave the state’s electors to Al Gore, then to George W. Bush, and left enough questions in the public’s minds that there are people who will forevermore think we don’t know what it was that Florida voters intended to do. Because a ballot's intent isn't always blatantly obvious.

Of course, understanding the process is one thing. Actually getting off one’s duff and casting a ballot is all the more important. Because of the evidence that certain segments of the electorate that might have been disgusted by the concept of “President Trump” were too lazy to bother to vote at all.

As odd as it might sound that Clinton needed more than her 2.86 million lead in votes to actually win this election cycle, that is the reality of our current system. The sooner we all realize that, the better off we will be!

  -30-

When is paranoia totally justified? Or, Get off yer lazy behind and Vote!!!

My step-mother’s sister, Betty, literally wagged her finger in my face this weekend while telling me it was absolutely crucial that I turn out and cast a ballot come Election Day this year.

 

TRUMP: He wants the presidential perks

She’s one of the people appalled by the existence of Donald Trump and has managed to get herself excited about the prospects of a “President Hillary Clinton” (although she flirted briefly with the idea of Bernie Sanders).

BUT SHE’S CONVINCED the natural apathy that afflicts people is going to cause too many to just sit on their fat behinds come Nov. 8.

Which, if it really happens, would enable the incredibly outspoken faction of our society that wants Trump in the White House (unless he decides the presidential mansion is unbecoming of him and he shifts operations to the Mar-A-Lago Club) to go out of his way to repudiate everything that has ever occurred that they disagree with.

Now I know some people are convinced that there are just too many checks and balances in place to allow Trump to do anywhere near the amount of damage he has pledged to do during his presidential campaigning. That line of logic is being spewed by those who seriously have their hang-ups about Hillary being anywhere near the political position once held by her husband, Bill.

But the paranoia about a Trump presidency persists – even though many (including myself) would argue there’s nothing “extreme” or “irrational” in their fear or “distrust” of “the Donald.” Even Hillary Clinton herself is more than willing to play off of it.

FOR I RECEIVED in my e-mail Sunday night a message from the Clinton campaign itself (and have since received two more similar notes), telling me how Trump’s fundraising is stepping up its work (supposedly $82 million raised during July), which boosts his chances of turning out the vote in parts of the country where the Electoral College favors them.

Trump is, “unqualified and unfit to lead our country – but the unfortunate reality we must confront is that he still might be able to win if he spends enough to convince voters otherwise,” was written on behalf of Hillary.

Of course, that e-mail then got to the real point – which wasn’t so much to remind us of how repulsive Donald Trump is but to tell us how we should donate more money to Clinton.

 

CLINTON: She wants campaign cash to stop him

The e-mail was set up in a way that I could “quick donate” as little as $3, figuring that a lot of petty donations from many people could add up to a significant amount. Of course, if I also feel compelled to be a more significant donor, they’re not about to refuse to accept my money.

NOT THAT IT’S going to influence me, because I generally don’t give money to political campaigns of any persuasion. In part because I’m cheap, but also because I don’t want any of these people thinking they can keep me on a list of individuals whom they come to expect for support. It's that old line of logic about a reporter-type person not wanting to create an impression of favoritism for anybody.

I may feel a twinge of guilt when I don’t make a donation to PBS or NPR (that's just because I'm cheap). But the campaigns are a different animal, and I don’t doubt that an operation as professional as the Clinton camp is capable of finding enough significant donors.

So their attempt to appeal to my sense of guilt and having a conscience isn’t going to get money from me. Besides, this particular e-mail reminded me that Trump has called women “fat pigs,” pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, erect that nonsensical wall along the U.S./Mexico border and boost the deportation totals from this country.

Yet nowhere did she tell us any reason why we should think she's any better.

I KNOW THE strategy of political operatives is to go nasty on the opposition until just before Election Day, at which time you bring everyone home, so to speak, by telling us how nice the candidate is.

I also don’t doubt that Trump will spend the next couple of months committing countless acts of borderline libel and slander on the Clinton reputation – and threaten to sue anyone who calls him out on his trash talk.

 

Will enough people get their sticker?

This is the time of the campaign season we’re in now, with negativity that’s only going to get worse and worse after Labor Day when political activity traditionally reaches its peak prior to Election Day.

Yet for me, the rhetoric from Clinton and Trump is something I can bear with. It may well be my “Aunt Betty” with her incessant appeals to vote (that probably won’t let up until she sees me wearing an “I voted” sticker on Nov. 8) that will be hardest to resist.

  -30-

Turnout will determine just who prevails on Tuesday’s Election Day

By the time Tuesday night is complete, we ought to know who wins all these elections that have tried to dominate our attention span in recent weeks.



Would this Elvgren cartoon need Den socialist symbol ...

Heck, in some cases, we’ll actually know who will get to serve in public office for the next four years – I don’t know of anyone who seriously thinks the Republican nominee for Cook County state’s attorney has a chance of prevailing in November.

BUT ANYBODY WHO says now they know who the Democratic nominee for that post will be is lying – and any predictions you hear now that turn out to be correct come Wednesday will, in reality, be nothing more than lucky guesses.



... added for an update?

It’s Election Day in Illinois, and all across our grand state we will get the chance to express our preferences for U.S. president, a U.S. Senate seat and other assorted posts within Congress and the General Assembly.

Along with all those judges and other court-related positions at the county level.

The key question – the one that I’m focusing my attention on come Tuesday, is turnout. How many people will actually feel compelled to show up at the polling places to cast a ballot?

Let's hope voter turnout is larger than that!

HOW MANY PEOPLE will think it important enough to express their say?

Or the real question may turn out to be; how many people will be so pathetically lazy that they won’t bother to express themselves? In which case, I’d argue they deserve whatever they get in terms of actually manages to win on this primary election cycle.

Aren't we glad this isn't a scare sight anymore?

I found it interesting to see the statements that came from the Cook County clerk’s office that said the first day of early voting in Illinois (which was on Feb. 29) produced a record-high number of votes cast (including my own at the county courthouse in Bridgeview).

We also got statements about how the total for the early voting time period was close to approaching a record, and how there were a particularly-high number of people actually registered to vote.

ALL OF WHICH might mean people care about this particular election cycle enough to vote. Or maybe they don’t?

Because political observers have noted that the concept of using early voting centers has become so commonplace that it really has no direct tie to the overall voter turnout.

Early voting is for the people who are so hard-core that they made up their minds several months ago. As for those who aren’t that set in their ways, they wait until Tuesday.

Time for all of Illinois to do its civic duty

Or perhaps they don’t bother to show up at all, if they can’t ever make up their minds.

WHICH IF YOU think about it is kind of scary; our political structure for the next four years is going to be decided by the kind of people who are indecisive and who will cast their vote if it fits within their convenience cycle.

Kind of like my teenage niece, who while I was writing this particular commentary responded to her grandfather’s request for a plastic bag by flinging it at his feet, then acting as though she had been massively inconvenienced by the whole request.

Are we supposed to feel equally grateful to those who bother to vote? Should we think they did us a favor by voting? There are times I wonder if the ideologue Republican types aren’t completely off their rocker when they say we make it too easy for people to register and cast a ballot.

After all, it is one of the ultimate perks our structure of government gives us – we are given a say in deciding who gets to run our government. Instead of what some places have; a structure in which a Donald Trump wouldn’t even dream of wanting to be president because all he’d have to do is throw his money at the public officials to get them to do his bidding!

  -30-

Get off your lazy duffs to make sure you’re registered to vote come Feb. 24

It’s my oft-stated belief that people who don’t bother to show up to vote come Election Day lose their right to complain about the ineptitude of their government officials.

Particularly since recent changes in electoral procedure now allow people to vote in advance of Election Day. You don’t necessarily have to wait in line for hours at a time on the big day in order to cast your ballot.

WHICH IS WHY I’m particularly worked up about Tuesday – which is the final day for people to make sure they’re registered to vote IF they want to be eligible to cast ballots in the mayoral election.

If you wait a couple of weeks, you could still be eligible to vote in the April 7 run-off elections that may well be necessary (the most recent poll I saw indicated no one is likely to win outright a month from now, and it will be Mayor Rahm Emanuel being challenged by Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia in a run-off).

But not being registered properly to vote will ensure that you would be committing a criminal offense if you were to try to cast a ballot come Feb. 24.

That would be truly a sad situation if it were to come about next month.

MY OWN BIAS is that I always want as many people as possible to turn out to cast ballots – and not just because I do think it is a civic obligation to take a few minutes to use one of those touch-screens that now serve as voting booths to express your opinion of who should serve in government.

Both as mayor, the clerk and treasurer positions, and who gets to represent your ward in the City Council.

I know there are some wards where the incumbent is unopposed, which gives people no choice for who will be their alderman. But there are others where there are ample choices.

Those residents ought to look at this as an opportunity to express themselves – to speak out in a way to make their pleasure (or displeasure) about City Hall known.

NOT BEING ABLE to do so because you were too lazy to even bother to register to vote is more of a negative statement about yourself rather than a wisecrack about the quality of government and its public officials.

Although I wonder how this upcoming municipal election cycle will turn out.

Because while I believe there are people who are appalled and disgusted by the current administration (particularly that of Emanuel) and who are screaming at the top of their voices to be heard, I also wonder if the apathy factor is going to cause many more people to care less.

Even if they are registered, they may not vote. And if they’re not registered, then activity on Feb. 24 (with a possible April 7 follow-up) is a moot point.

THERE ALSO WILL be conflicting perceptions because of the fact that so much of metro Chicago is suburban – about two-thirds, to be exact. In those communities, the municipal elections don’t come until April 7.

Within Cook County, only suburban Dolton and Morton Grove have any offices up for stake next month. Everybody else will wait until April to decide who should be the leaders of their local governments.

And if past elections are any example, few suburban people will bother to turn out. City elections are different in that politically-aware people take them more seriously than the state or federal elections. Some of the same city residents who couldn’t be bothered to vote for governor last year will think mayor means more.

But how many of last year’s lazy people will care less this year? And how many of them will scream the loudest come early May when the new local officials are sworn in for the next four years of service?

  -30-

Have gift cards replaced turkeys as 21st Century preference for buying a vote?

It’s one of the oldest tactics for political people representing less-than-middle-class voters to try to get their electoral support – an aldermanic “gift” whose appreciation is expected to be repaid in the future with a “vote.”

Oftentimes, that gift was a turkey or something else that could be the main course for an upcoming holiday meal. To this day, there are political people who make a point of getting turkeys they can give away to their constituents – in hopes that they get the public recognition of their “generosity.”

SO HAVE ALL those political people been behaving in a criminal manner?

Perhaps, if we’re to take the outrage being expressed against 5^th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston these days, it is.

For Hairston is the alderman who WFLD-TV reports tried encouraging people to show up to vote for the upcoming Election Day by offering up raffle tickets – the prizes for which included gift cards to area businesses.

For all we know, some of those tickets could have been used at area grocery stores to buy items for the holiday meal (Thanksgiving isn’t that far off in the future).

ALTHOUGH THE RAFFLE is on hold, and probably now won’t happen because of the negative publicity Hairston would get – the exact opposite of her intentions.

She tried using a Facebook page promoting herself to tell people how she’d give them a raffle ticket if they showed up at the polling place. WIN A PRIZE FOR YOUR VOTE!!!!! was the theme she was trying to push.

She seems to have thought it would be perceived as Hairston trying to encourage people to do their civic duty and vote on Election Day.

Instead, it seems that people of a certain mindset took it as something amounting to a bribe – as if the raffle ticket was a bribe (or is that BRIBE!!!?!) in exchange for a vote.

ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD be noted that nowhere in the raffle announcement on Facebook were people being told exactly how they should vote. I’m presuming that Hairston figured people living in the South Side’s fifth ward would have enough sense to disregard any consideration for candidates who have an “R” associated with their names.

But the fact that she didn’t try to specifically sway someone to vote for a particular candidate may be the reason she evades some sort of criminal prosecution – although the Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday that the Cook County state’s attorney’s office is looking into the whole matter.

The state election code is going to be up for interpretation in coming weeks.

Personally, I’m not bothered as much by her raffle tickets to encourage voting as I am by her attitude since then. When the matter became public, Hairston took the raffle ticket offer off her Facebook page.

IT SEEMS TO be invalid now. And Hairston is telling reporter-type people that she doesn’t want to talk about the issue any more. As though she can make it go away just because she stopped doing it before any serious damage may, or may not, have been done.

Even though I’m fairly sure that law enforcement types aren’t going to be too concerned about the after-effect. It’s the initial act itself that will get them all worked up.

So we’ll have to see in coming months if the state’s attorney winds up concluding that this matter is worth the time, effort and cost it would take to prosecute someone for the act.

Although I’d wonder if the real “offense” is that an alderman thought she could “buy off” votes for the cost of a Walgreen’s gift card. Which shows as little respect for the voter (how cheaply they can be bought) as the turkey-bearing politicos of old.

  -30-

EXTRA: Perhaps Illinois legislators need a lesson on how to cast a vote

Both the Illinois Senate and House of Representatives gave overwhelming votes of support on Friday for a measure permitting “concealed carry” – the practice of carrying a pistol on one’s person in public for self-defense.

JONES: Meant to vote "yes"

Yet it seems that some legislators don’t want to have to take criticism for how the official record will record their stance. In the Illinois House, the final vote was 89-28.

ONE OF THE people who did not vote was state Rep. Thaddeus Jones, D-Calumet City. Is he really position-less on the matter?

Or is he telling the truth when, as he explained after the vote was taken, he meant to vote “yes” but that the device on his desk that allows him to vote on bills did not function.

Did someone really “turn off” his device to prevent him from being vote number 90? Who’s to say!

Although his explanation bothers me less than that of state Rep. Edward Acevedo, D-Chicago, who is recorded as voting “yes” for the bill, but says he wants to be thought of as having voted “present.”

NOT THE BOLDEST of actions – although it prevents the National Rifle Association-types from being able to criticize him on the issue.

So now, the issue goes to Gov. Pat Quinn – who likely will sign it to avoid legal catastrophe from being imposed by the federal appeals courts. Although this is a man who has been willing to say “no” to the gambling interests who dream of more and more casinos across Illinois.

ACEVEDO: Pushed the wrong button

And we may soon have a law that allows those people in rural parts of the state to carry pistols for use against anyone they feel threatens them – although the larger municipalities with Home Rule powers will have the ability to push their own restrictions on firearms.

Which will tick off the rural interests; for whom a large part of this whole issue was imposing their perspective on firearms onto Chicago and the whole state.

SO FOR THOSE who are upset that Illinois won’t be in a group with California and New York (states that give their local police great authority to reject applications for firearms permits), keep in mind that the law could have wound up much worse!

Although I’m still waiting for the first incident where someone who is armed gets crocked in a restaurant that serves liquor, then feels threatened by the presence of another patron in the booth two seats away.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): Rooting, for once, for the inmates

This might be the one time that the ideologues of our society who like to rant and rage about us being “soft on crime” might have been rooting for the inmates at the Cook County Jail.



Beats finding a 'shiv' in a cell

Then again, maybe they think chess is too soft an activity – and they’ll still rage!

I WAS AMUSED by the Chicago Sun-Times report about how inmates at the county jail this week played inmates held in prisons across Russia. It wasn’t face-to-face. Our inmates were in the jail’s law library, while the Russian inmates were in their own prison facilities. The games were played on-line.



Not the typical chess championship setting

And it seems that the criminal element of Russian society is just as masterful at chess as their international champions – as they beat the bulk of the Cook County inmates. One inmate went so far as to tell the Sun-Times that the games felt, “like an ambush.”

Personally, I find the idea of inmates spending all their spare time (which is what they have while being incarcerated) playing a board game to be encouraging. There are worse things they could be doing.

Although I couldn’t help but notice some people using the anonymity of the Internet to complain that these inmates should have been doing something that resembles hard labor.

THEY PROBABLY WOULD only be pleased to see inmates wearing black-and-white striped uniforms and swinging big hammers. Personally, I’d be concerned that they’d use those hammers as weapons against their guards.

As Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart told the Sun-Times, chess is harmless because they can’t really, “beat someone with a rook.”

And as for those who wonder about the whuppin’ the Cook County inmates received this week, there’s one encouraging factor. They have nothing but time to continue to practice and get better – should there ever be anything resembling a rematch.

What else was notable amongst the activity taking place Thursday on the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan?

SOME SENSE PREVAILS?: It has been a month since the Cook County courts imposed their new ban on people being able to bring their cellular telephones into the courthouses, and a part of me is relieved to see that some semblance of sense prevails in terms of that policy’s enforcement.



Deputies showing some sense in phone enforcement

My duties as a reporter-type person took me Thursday to the courthouse in suburban Markham, where deputies were allowing people to keep their phones on their persons inside the building.

They were requiring anyone wishing to make a call to go outside to do so. But the idea of people with business before the court having to surrender the phones wasn’t quite so rigid as the “letter of the law” implies.

Although within the courtrooms, judges were saying that anybody whose phones rang during session would have them confiscated. And I did see one individual try to use his phone during court. Deputies confiscated it from him, but returned it when he left for the day.

THE YOUTH VOTE?: It’s now in the hands of Gov. Pat Quinn as to whether 17-year-olds will be able to cast ballots in elections in Illinois.



Not the favorite setting for youth

The state Senate this week gave the final legislative approval required for a bill that allows 17-year-olds to vote in primaries – IF they can document that they will be 18 by the time the general election comes around.

Yes, I’m aware there are a few youthful types already on their way toward becoming government geeks who will be all worked up about the chance to cast their first ballot a few months earlier than the law currently allows.

But those officials who say they support this as a way of bolstering the percentage of those who vote? It sounds like wishful thinking to my mindset, since the rule of thumb for political professionals trying to turn out the vote is that it is the old folks, so to speak, who are the most reliable when it comes to showing up at the polling place.

  -30-

Now, we look forward to 2014 election cycle (or is it ’16? Or maybe ’13 or '15?)

The campaigning is over. The votes are cast. We can all now exhale and relax. No more election talk.

These machines will be back soon enough



Ah, who’s kidding whom?

IT’S TIME FOR the election cycle to begin yet again. It’s like we don’t get a break from this talk. It just means that amount of negative advertising we’ll see on television and hostile fliers we'll see in our mailboxes will decline for a few months – before stirring up again.

Personally, it has caused me to watch less television in recent weeks. Which may be a good thing for my mental process. Less overall pollution clogging my brain.

But the fact remains that the political operatives will now shift into gear for the future election cycles – trying to do now whatever they can to give themselves a head-start for when the heavy-duty campaigning kicks itself into gear. Watching CBS News, they speculated about the next presidential candidates at about 11 p.m. -- only bout 45 minutes after it became apparent that Barack Obama won the Electoral College vote and a second term as president.

I know in my duties for one of the daily newspapers in the Chicago suburbs, I already have written some stories about candidates for municipal office who are already starting to campaign for the 2013 election cycle.

THE VARIOUS SUBURBAN mayors, trustees, school board and park district members and other local bigwigs whose names mean nothing outside of their home communities already are in the process of putting together their nominating petitions to get themselves on the ballot for either the Feb. 26 primary elections (for those few towns that have partisan elections) or the April 9 general elections.

In Chicago proper, the City Council and Mayor Rahm Emanuel put us through this process in 2011. So we’re spared until 2015 – although I’m sure aldermen already are gearing themselves up for re-election processes.

Particularly since that election cycle will be the first in which they run in the ward boundaries that were drawn (and approved) earlier this year. They have new constituents to meet to ensure that there are few surprises for them come ’15.

Don’t care about those local elections? Well, let’s not forget that Illinois state government has its offices up for grabs again in 2014! The Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. this year was just as much about this as it was about anything related to Mitt Romney.

AARON SCHOCK, THE Peoria native who got himself elected to the Legislature in his 20s and to Congress now, has hopes of becoming the youngest governor ever elected in Illinois. He reportedly already is talking up people behind the scenes trying to build support for a campaign.

Which makes me wonder if he’s more interested in doing everything while young, rather than actually achieving something of substance (but that’s an issue for a future day’s commentary).

Yet he’s not going to be alone. It seems pretty obvious that state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale, who once was Gov. Jim Edgar’s chief of staff, wants to run again. He thinks he came so close in 2010 that he has to give it another shot.

There also will be others who will come forward, including Illinois state Treasurer Dan Rutherford, who likely figures that after serving for years in the Legislature and holding a state constitutional office, he’s ready for the top post.

THE BRAWL FOR the right to challenge Gov. Pat Quinn (assuming Quinn has any desire to keep serving) is already underway. Along with the speculation from Democratic Party officials who want to have themselves primed on the chance that Quinn decides that a full term of his own as governor is the perfect way to retire from political life.

My head aches already from the speculation.

Then, comes the fact that some people are going to want to think ahead to the many elections held in all the states in 2016 for U.S. president. Some already want to think ahead to the end of the term of the winner of Tuesday’s elections.

Personally, I’m wondering from among the names such as Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul or any of the others who had a few moments of “fame” in 2012 means they have a serious chance of getting the nomination four years from now.

EVEN THOUGH THAT political party would be best off looking for someone “new,” just as the Democrats will have to find a new name to be the top of their ticket (Barack Obama can’t run a third time, and the Clintons are most definitely the past as well).

“New” ought to be the key word. For 2012 was an ideological headache that we’d be best to avoid in the future. Making ’16 a retread would show that we learned nothing from our mistakes.

  -30-