Seems to me he was just saying what patronizing, financially comfortable, self satisfied elite liberals always say, which is some variation of “Don’t rock the boat! Be thankful for the crumbs that you’ve got, because if the other guy wins you won’t even have that! The Democrats are your friend! They may be a party of corporatist warmongers who serve only at the pleasure of Wall Street and the corporate lobbying class, but they’re YOUR party of corporatist warmongers who serve only at the pleasure of Wall Street and the corporate lobbying class, gosh darn it!”
Do you and Michael M. think that the people that voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 or Pat Buchanan in 2000 or Ross Perot in 1992 were putting their “abstract principles” above the “needs of marginalized groups”? Or did you approve of third party voting in those instances because, theoretically, they were taking votes from Republicans?
There are any number of books that I could recommend that might enlighten you on this whole matter, but if you read just one, please make it To the Ramparts: How Bush and Obama Paved the Way for the Trump Presidency by Ralph Nader. It does a superb job of exposing the deceitfulness of the politically bigoted notion of a “third party spoiler”. Consult and enjoy.
Steven K, it seems to me that you are just saying what conservative, patronizing, white, heterosexual, cisgender males always say, which is some variation of “there is no difference between the parties,” even though Republicans want to do away with affirmative action, do away with reproductive health care for women, prevent gay people from marrying and adopting, and keep transgender people out of public bathrooms and locker rooms. Hey, if it doesn’t affect you, it isn’t important, right?
Joanie, if you enjoy the idea that you’re saving the world by voting always Democrat, no questions asked, then by all means knock yourself out, but as I (and other commenters just in today’s post) have pointed out many times, it won’t make a whiff of difference unless you’re a resident of a swing state, which of course, Illinois most certainly is not.
There are lots of issues of monumental importance that I care deeply about that have nothing to do with being a white, heterosexual cisgender male, but because none of them are being trumpeted by any political parties or activists as being something to get excited about, there’s really no one that I can point to and scold everyone else for not voting for. Maybe if there was, then I would.
Um, you are patronizing. If you look up mansplaining in the dictionary, you will see your picture there. I’ll leave it to others to assess whether you are a conservative. By the way, what are the issues that don’t affect you that you care deeply about? Women’s reproductive health care? Racial discrimination? Marriage equality? Rights of transgender persons? Asylum rights for immigrants? Something else?
1. The opioid crisis. Politicians love to give lip service to this issue, but when will we hear one that will say out loud what is obvious to any thoughtful person that examines this problem: that the only way that we’ll ever curtail the death toll is by legalizing opiates like heroin and morphine? My guess is never.
2. The cell phone crisis. How long before one of the major political parties acknowledges the singular cause of the massive societal spikes in auto fatalities, mental illness, depression, anxiety, isolation, despair, and suicide that have burgeoned (especially among young people) over the last fifteen years? Why is it completely legal to give these destructive devices to kids? When will will one of the major parties demand rigid regulation of these lethal, brain damaging devices? Desantis has at least broached the subject, but there needs to be outrage on the order of what Democrats express about gun deaths.
3. Cigarettes. When will one of the major parties call for an unequivocal ban on them? Spare me the libertarian arguments; these things are a pollutant and blight on the ecosystem, and they need to go the way of DDT. The first politician to demand this instantly gets my vote.
So you want to legalize heroin and ban tobacco? And make it illegal for parents, who want their kids to have cell phones, to give their kids cell phones?
Joanie: e.g., the core of libertarian beliefs are personal freedom and non-aggression. they are certianly the beliefs of the of the Libertarian party candidate for Prez, chase oliver, a gay man.
with due respect for your beliefs of how another trump admin wd impact GSM [gender & sexual minority] people, how is my voting for chase oliver for Prez antithetical to the interests of GSM people?
if you believe that my vote for Prez would contribute to another trump admin [it wouldn't], then you must also believe that another trump admin wd be able to implement many of its worst [e.g., Project 2025] policy proposals. if so, i suggest you review the 1st trump admin's 'achievements' - he/they got almost nothing accomplished, other than tax cuts for the wealthy - not good, but not earth shaking.
PS - i'm not equating the Dem party to the [MAGA] Repub party. tho i do believe both of their policy prescriptions are bad for the long-term interests of america and americans.
I can't speak for Michael M., but yes, I think the Johnson/Buchanan/Perot voters did that. However, they identified "marginalized groups" as overtaxed wealthy people, oppressed white people, or regulated business owners. I identify them as women who want choice, trans people who want equality, labor unions who want respect, etc.--the standards liberal groups.
Long ago, I heard Noam Chomsky spend an hour blasting U.S. foreign policy in Central America--and then explain why he was voting for Dukakis. Neither candidate's Central American policies would affect him personally. But, he noted, life looks different at the other end of the barrel of a gun. Though both parties had terrible records, there was a meaningful difference for those would would suffer most if Bush won.
If I see others with better principles, I try to adopt those. I assume everyone does this.
I think of people with whom I generally agree politically but who refuse to vote for Harris as willing to sacrifice the immediate needs of some people, such women who want an abortion, gay people who want to marry, and any of us concerned about climate change, etc., for the sake of a larger longer-term goal. I don't always disagree with this strategy. It's what we did in the American Civil War: we asked people to sacrifice their lives, initially to to save the republican form of government, and then to end slavery. I disagree with this strategy for this electiton. To me, asking others to sacrifice makes sense only if we have a reasonable chance to win. I don't see a reasonable chance that we will adopt a dramatically more fair and free society right now. So, to me, not voting for Harris is asking others to sacrifice without a reasonable chance of success.
I think reformers as diverse as Karl Marx and Frederick Douglass and Michael Harrington have agreed that society moves in a positive direction when progressives align with moderates. I think of the abolitionists who supported Lincoln in 1860, even though he clearly intended to protect slavery in the states where it existed. And the workers and socialists who supported FDR in 1932, even though he was a wealthy man dedicated to protecting capitalism. And the civil rights leaders who supported LBJ, even though he had close ties to the most racist elements in our society. I'm glad Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ all won, even with their flawed policies. I think the people they defeated would have made the same mistakes they did but without the achievements they left us.
Now enlighten me. Is there a president or other high elected leader in U.S. history you think you would have voted for in the past?
Why not a national popular vote in a federal election for federal positions? The "electoral college" is a terrible example of "states rights"--the slogan of racists forever and now for the post-Dobbs oppression of women by religious fanatics enabled by Agent Orange.
By the way, I have always been against compulsory voting and still am dubious, but it would eliminate some of the more egregious MAGA voter suppression tactics.
Agree on popular vote supplanting EC. RE compulsory voting - we can incentivize voting more without making it compulsory. Make election day a holiday (or have it on the weekend), give a tax credit for voting, some other measures, I bet participation will skyrocket.
I upvoted you about the EC, but I'm 100% in favor of compulsory voting. It works in Australia & you're not required to vote for anyone, you can return a blank ballot. My only requirement with compulsory voting would be that to return a blank ballot, you must do so only in person on Election Day! No early voting for the protestors!
A national popular vote would be a disaster. Instead of swing states arguing over a close race we’d have red and blue states pumping up the ballot counts in their favor with no opposition to check them.
A disaster is a candidate receiving 3 million+ more votes than the person declared the winner. The fact that the "winner" is a scoundrel is irrelevant to this discussion. If the "winner" were St Francis of Assissi it would still be a travesty
If you have a right to do something, it seems you should have a corresponding right not to do it. I am also opposed to compulsory voting. This ain't Australia. More should be done to eliminate voter suppression.
Someone on Quora calculated the number of votes that would have been cast by each state in every U.S. presidential election since 1864 if every state had cast its electoral votes in proportion to its popular votes.
"The biggest difference I found was that 12 of those 39 elections (1880, 1892, 1901, 1909, 1913, 1925, 1948, 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016) would have had to be decided by the U.S. House of Representatives due to nobody receiving a majority of presidential electoral votes."
Such a system would enable third-party spoilers, yes, so there would ideally be a top-two apportionment. Because the U.S. House solution is awful, given that it stands frequently to negate the popular vote. I'd like to see which party controlled the House after those no-majority elections and so how many of them would have gone to the candidate who did not prevail in the popular vote.
Hypothetically, I’ve wondered if some type of parliamentary system would be better. Of course we’re very fearful that a vengeful autocrat will become leader of this country, so issues regarding the electoral college and voting systems are a focus. If Harris becomes president, the aftermath will be interesting. Will the right wing crazies accept reality? Will Trump, given his age, become irrelevant to them? They should know that if Harris is elected, a Republican could easily replace her in four years.
In my opinion, thinking that the Electoral College system is going to change is a pipe dream. After EVERY election---and I have been through lots and lots of elections---there's always a big hew and cry about abolishing or reforming the EC. And then.....nothing happens. The issue goes away----until the next election, and the cycle begins again. I'm an optimistic person for most things, but discussing this is, in my opinion, futile. EC reform/abolishing is unfortunately never going to happen.
Re: CPS Teachers in the suburbs. I have some data on this based on a sample size of 1. In 5th grade in a school in Evanston, one of my kids had a teacher who had previously been a teacher at CPS. She was not good. The perception of her is that she did not put in the time and effort that was expected in that school. She did not last even the entire school year.
Clearly this is statistically significant. But it made me wonder if expectation of teachers in CPS is lower than that in high achieving suburban schools.
Add to that the absurd residency requirement for CPS teachers, which signals that quality of education is not a priority in the City. Imagine if Northwestern Hospital required all of its employees to live in the City. I would expect the quality of service to go way down since many of the doctors would find jobs in the suburbs.
I've never paid attention to that residency rule before but have a vague sense the rule applies to teachers, policy, and maybe firefighters. Do you know if in-district residency is required for ALL city employees? And is that also the case for all County employees, and all State employees? Just curious.
My point is that any operation in Chicago would be much worse off if it restricted itself to employing only city residents. I picked the hospital just to have a concrete example. It follows that the quality of what CPS does could be made much better if they were permitted to hire people outside of the city. What taxpayers pay for in a teacher is the service they provide in their job, which they can do even if they go home every day to the suburbs.
Getting more states into the National Popular Compact would destroy the Electoral College.
As for the White Sox, it's obvious that the Angels tanked all three games against them to avoid being the answer to a trivia question in the future.
Then we come to Brandon Johnson, certainly the single person with the least common sense to be mayor is a long, long time. His pathetic lie yesterday that he never demanded that Pedro Martinez be removed as CPS CEO is disgraceful. Now what happens is that no side on any issue will ever trust him again to keep his word on any deals.
And as for his moronic decision to kill off Shot Spotter, so far the police have discovered two people shot to death a couple of days after they were shot, because no one called 911 over any shots fired. So the serious question there is, would Shot Spotter have saved their lives?
Now I hear loud reports about once a week in my neighborhood, but I never call, because I actually can't tell if it's guns shots or firecrackers, plus the reports are not close enough for me to determine where they came from.
Fidelity Investments now reports its purchase of Twitter stock is now worth just 25% of what they paid for it. Musk has destroyed its value, with his insane ego, lack of discipline & wing nut politics!
I liked Lori Lightfoot. She rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but I thought she was sincere and talented. Mayor of Chicago is a nearly impossible job.
Yes, the National Popular Compact seems the way to go: requires no constitutional amendment, and several states are already on board, although not nearly enough, yet. The basics: states pass laws that require their electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote, but only when participating states' electoral votes equal or exceed the 271 required for victory. In recent years, at least, the outcome of the popular vote has been clear long before Electoral College voting takes place.
I don't want to pile on the Sox but wins and losses determine who finishes in what position in the standings and who goes to the playoffs and ultimately who wins the World Series. By that measure the 2024 Sox are the worst ever. Using winning percentage, while mathematically correct is a dodge whereby this terrible team can say "hey we are fifth on THAT list." Get real, you're the worst.
A team or movie or date is always compared to what your expectations were before hand. In the case of the 1962 Mets I think people did not expect much of an expansion team. Sox fans did not expect a team worse than last years.
In this same vein, I think the Cubs had a more disappointing season. Missed the playoffs by a game last year, made some additions and still no playoffs. The Sox were predicted to lose 90 or so games. Prediction exceeded!
Regarding the accumulation of wealth, I strongly recommend that PS readers read (or listen to - it's an awesome listen) Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century". Piketty is a French economist who has taught at MIT and LSE. In his book, he argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, which causes future increases in wealth inequality. Although its a 24 hour listen, it's worth every minute. He is able to break down complex economic principles into very reader/listener-friendly digestible bites.
Also, good Visual Quips of the Week (VQotW). Corn Maze is clearly the best, with Death to your houseplants - particularly relevant to most - a good second.
I saw Stacey Davis-Gates interviewed last night. She - who does not send her kids to CPS schools - is living in a dream world when it comes to seeking more funds for the CPS.
I heartily agree with JakeH's take on the issues facing CPS and its teachers.
Regarding Spot Hero and retail in general, a good experience will get a customer to return; a bad experience may lose a customer for life. Good companies understand that and provide good customer support. Other companies… go out of business.
I’m not a fan of getting rid of the electoral college, but I might go along with a method like the states that give electors based on vote in congressional districts. I don’t know if this could be passed, but I know eliminating the college altogether would not.
The most important factor in student performance is home environment, and to a somewhat lesser extent, neighborhood. I don’t know the answer to this problem. One thing that comes to mind is, for example, that the more you practice the basics — reading, writing, arithmetic, the better you get at them, which is true for most endeavors. I just hope we’re not impeding in any way a student who wants to practice those things.
While I appreciate the shout-out I'm not sure a simple transcription error merits a separate piece in today's post, much another "d'oh" in Thursday's post. Just relax and let it go. It was already corrected in the original post.
If all the states were willing to apportion their Electoral votes by popular vote they should also be willing to pass a Constitutional amendment to abolish the EC outright, which doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime I think we should focus on overhauling the 1929 law capping the number of representatives at 435, which has led to larger states losing voting power in Congress and in the Electoral College. If we based the number of representatives on the total population divided by the population of the smallest state, we would have 140 more members in the House now, and the same bump in EC votes allotted.
I use SpotHero (and ParkWhiz and ParkChirp) a lot, and mostly they work great. I'm always amused when SpotHero and ParkWhiz have the same garage at different prices. ParkWhiz tends to have a little more in the way of hidden "service fees" than SpotHero does, but they're still sometimes cheaper overall. And it's typically a fraction of the price of just driving up to a garage and paying the rack rate.
I have had occasional snags with SpotHero, and always got made whole, but sometimes more easily than others. Once I had reserved a spot under the L tracks near Steppenwolf, only to arrive to no empty spaces. I called, and they zapped me a pass to a garage less than a block away. But another time I reserved a spot behind an apartment building -- "any of 5" -- and all 5 were occupied. I called but only got hold music; tried again later and also only hold music. I ended up paying a valet who handles Steppenwolf and nearby restaurants. I emailed SpotHero, requesting a refund for the occupied space I paid for, and suggested they could credit me for the overage I paid by going elsewhere. They eventually did, but it took several rounds of email, and each time they said, "next time you should call." (Even though in each mail I explained that I DID call and no one answered.)
I use Parkwhiz. I hate it when the only space you can get is one of those on an alley behind an apartment building. Either they are already occupied, or they are so tight they give me the willies.
While I am in favor of higher tax rates for the wealthy, I have always had a problem with the simplistic argument that in the 1950s we had a really high top tax bracket, and we also built up the middle class, therefore it must be true that one led to the other. The economic situation in the 1950s was somewhat unique with Europe still rebuilding after WWII and East Asia mired in multiple civil wars, leaving US businesses with a glut of manufacturing capacity and little to no competition around the world. It would have been weird if the US economy hadn't boomed. The middle class born from that boom was more a result of high union membership and government regulation than anything else.
Scarcely did anyone pay the 90% rate. There was no great increase in revenue. There were 4 recessions between 1949 - 1960. It's always been more about the loopholes than the top rates.
Ouch, re Jake H. on my Mincing Rascals comments last week! Even more painfully, I agree with Jake. I didn’t mean to imply that CPS teachers alone can overcome all the problems many of their students unfortunately bring with them when they come from difficult and often traumatic home environments. I’d go back and listen for how badly I stated my thought, but I can’t stand the sound of my own voice. I’m a creature of the written word still striving to speak extemporaneously, I freely admit it. Anyway, of course Jake is completely correct that even poor teachers will have higher-testing students when those students come from involved, usually higher income households, and even great teachers may not be able to make much of a dent in high poverty schools. The point I meant to make is that no longer revealing student performance by school, as CPS intends to do, solves nothing and denies parents the ability to know how their kids’ school is doing, and/or it denies them the ability to try to get their kids into better performing schools. Both points are important. We all know that students are hugely influenced by their peers. A school where students are already testing well is a better environment for your own student. And without knowing how your student’s school is performing each year, you can’t even tell if the student academics are improving or deteriorating. Parents have a right to basic information about school academic performance. Sorry I didn’t get that across verbally!
I heard your comments on Mincing Rascals and agree with you. Most well meaning parents want their children to be in classes with academically motivated and well behaved kids and it can have a larger role in their child's performance than the actual teacher. I am assuming, however, that even though CPS will not use test scores to rate schools, the information will still be available through the state report cards, motivated parents will still find it and schools will still have reputations for high or low academic achievement. So bottom line will be that kids who are lucky enough to be born to parents that are motivated to seek academic excellence for their kids will still probably flock to those schools. That is unless CPS denies them those opportunities by limiting magnet, charter or select enrollment schools or limiting transportation to and from those schools. The current practice of denying transportation to kids from troubled neighborhoods to these high quality schools seems like it will only make the high performing schools less diverse racially and economically. I know there are labor shortages everywhere but the suburban districts seem to be able to hire enough bus drivers to transport kids.
To Michael M. on Third-Party Voting, esp. this year: Thanks for saying concisely what I have fumbled to say to friends.
Seems to me he was just saying what patronizing, financially comfortable, self satisfied elite liberals always say, which is some variation of “Don’t rock the boat! Be thankful for the crumbs that you’ve got, because if the other guy wins you won’t even have that! The Democrats are your friend! They may be a party of corporatist warmongers who serve only at the pleasure of Wall Street and the corporate lobbying class, but they’re YOUR party of corporatist warmongers who serve only at the pleasure of Wall Street and the corporate lobbying class, gosh darn it!”
Do you and Michael M. think that the people that voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 or Pat Buchanan in 2000 or Ross Perot in 1992 were putting their “abstract principles” above the “needs of marginalized groups”? Or did you approve of third party voting in those instances because, theoretically, they were taking votes from Republicans?
There are any number of books that I could recommend that might enlighten you on this whole matter, but if you read just one, please make it To the Ramparts: How Bush and Obama Paved the Way for the Trump Presidency by Ralph Nader. It does a superb job of exposing the deceitfulness of the politically bigoted notion of a “third party spoiler”. Consult and enjoy.
Steven K, it seems to me that you are just saying what conservative, patronizing, white, heterosexual, cisgender males always say, which is some variation of “there is no difference between the parties,” even though Republicans want to do away with affirmative action, do away with reproductive health care for women, prevent gay people from marrying and adopting, and keep transgender people out of public bathrooms and locker rooms. Hey, if it doesn’t affect you, it isn’t important, right?
I am NOT conservative. Or patronizing.
Joanie, if you enjoy the idea that you’re saving the world by voting always Democrat, no questions asked, then by all means knock yourself out, but as I (and other commenters just in today’s post) have pointed out many times, it won’t make a whiff of difference unless you’re a resident of a swing state, which of course, Illinois most certainly is not.
There are lots of issues of monumental importance that I care deeply about that have nothing to do with being a white, heterosexual cisgender male, but because none of them are being trumpeted by any political parties or activists as being something to get excited about, there’s really no one that I can point to and scold everyone else for not voting for. Maybe if there was, then I would.
Um, you are patronizing. If you look up mansplaining in the dictionary, you will see your picture there. I’ll leave it to others to assess whether you are a conservative. By the way, what are the issues that don’t affect you that you care deeply about? Women’s reproductive health care? Racial discrimination? Marriage equality? Rights of transgender persons? Asylum rights for immigrants? Something else?
Looked up mansplaining and was shocked to actually see Steven K’s picture. 😉
1. The opioid crisis. Politicians love to give lip service to this issue, but when will we hear one that will say out loud what is obvious to any thoughtful person that examines this problem: that the only way that we’ll ever curtail the death toll is by legalizing opiates like heroin and morphine? My guess is never.
2. The cell phone crisis. How long before one of the major political parties acknowledges the singular cause of the massive societal spikes in auto fatalities, mental illness, depression, anxiety, isolation, despair, and suicide that have burgeoned (especially among young people) over the last fifteen years? Why is it completely legal to give these destructive devices to kids? When will will one of the major parties demand rigid regulation of these lethal, brain damaging devices? Desantis has at least broached the subject, but there needs to be outrage on the order of what Democrats express about gun deaths.
3. Cigarettes. When will one of the major parties call for an unequivocal ban on them? Spare me the libertarian arguments; these things are a pollutant and blight on the ecosystem, and they need to go the way of DDT. The first politician to demand this instantly gets my vote.
So you want to legalize heroin and ban tobacco? And make it illegal for parents, who want their kids to have cell phones, to give their kids cell phones?
Joanie: e.g., the core of libertarian beliefs are personal freedom and non-aggression. they are certianly the beliefs of the of the Libertarian party candidate for Prez, chase oliver, a gay man.
with due respect for your beliefs of how another trump admin wd impact GSM [gender & sexual minority] people, how is my voting for chase oliver for Prez antithetical to the interests of GSM people?
if you believe that my vote for Prez would contribute to another trump admin [it wouldn't], then you must also believe that another trump admin wd be able to implement many of its worst [e.g., Project 2025] policy proposals. if so, i suggest you review the 1st trump admin's 'achievements' - he/they got almost nothing accomplished, other than tax cuts for the wealthy - not good, but not earth shaking.
PS - i'm not equating the Dem party to the [MAGA] Repub party. tho i do believe both of their policy prescriptions are bad for the long-term interests of america and americans.
I can't speak for Michael M., but yes, I think the Johnson/Buchanan/Perot voters did that. However, they identified "marginalized groups" as overtaxed wealthy people, oppressed white people, or regulated business owners. I identify them as women who want choice, trans people who want equality, labor unions who want respect, etc.--the standards liberal groups.
Long ago, I heard Noam Chomsky spend an hour blasting U.S. foreign policy in Central America--and then explain why he was voting for Dukakis. Neither candidate's Central American policies would affect him personally. But, he noted, life looks different at the other end of the barrel of a gun. Though both parties had terrible records, there was a meaningful difference for those would would suffer most if Bush won.
Man I ruffled some feathers here, didn't I?
so, your & michael M's principles are better than my principles and the principles of those others who reject the binary Dem/Repub choice?
accd'g to you, we're benighted - enlighten us, please.
If I see others with better principles, I try to adopt those. I assume everyone does this.
I think of people with whom I generally agree politically but who refuse to vote for Harris as willing to sacrifice the immediate needs of some people, such women who want an abortion, gay people who want to marry, and any of us concerned about climate change, etc., for the sake of a larger longer-term goal. I don't always disagree with this strategy. It's what we did in the American Civil War: we asked people to sacrifice their lives, initially to to save the republican form of government, and then to end slavery. I disagree with this strategy for this electiton. To me, asking others to sacrifice makes sense only if we have a reasonable chance to win. I don't see a reasonable chance that we will adopt a dramatically more fair and free society right now. So, to me, not voting for Harris is asking others to sacrifice without a reasonable chance of success.
I think reformers as diverse as Karl Marx and Frederick Douglass and Michael Harrington have agreed that society moves in a positive direction when progressives align with moderates. I think of the abolitionists who supported Lincoln in 1860, even though he clearly intended to protect slavery in the states where it existed. And the workers and socialists who supported FDR in 1932, even though he was a wealthy man dedicated to protecting capitalism. And the civil rights leaders who supported LBJ, even though he had close ties to the most racist elements in our society. I'm glad Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ all won, even with their flawed policies. I think the people they defeated would have made the same mistakes they did but without the achievements they left us.
Now enlighten me. Is there a president or other high elected leader in U.S. history you think you would have voted for in the past?
Why not a national popular vote in a federal election for federal positions? The "electoral college" is a terrible example of "states rights"--the slogan of racists forever and now for the post-Dobbs oppression of women by religious fanatics enabled by Agent Orange.
By the way, I have always been against compulsory voting and still am dubious, but it would eliminate some of the more egregious MAGA voter suppression tactics.
Agree on popular vote supplanting EC. RE compulsory voting - we can incentivize voting more without making it compulsory. Make election day a holiday (or have it on the weekend), give a tax credit for voting, some other measures, I bet participation will skyrocket.
I upvoted you about the EC, but I'm 100% in favor of compulsory voting. It works in Australia & you're not required to vote for anyone, you can return a blank ballot. My only requirement with compulsory voting would be that to return a blank ballot, you must do so only in person on Election Day! No early voting for the protestors!
A national popular vote would be a disaster. Instead of swing states arguing over a close race we’d have red and blue states pumping up the ballot counts in their favor with no opposition to check them.
Utterly absurd!
A disaster is a candidate receiving 3 million+ more votes than the person declared the winner. The fact that the "winner" is a scoundrel is irrelevant to this discussion. If the "winner" were St Francis of Assissi it would still be a travesty
If you have a right to do something, it seems you should have a corresponding right not to do it. I am also opposed to compulsory voting. This ain't Australia. More should be done to eliminate voter suppression.
Someone on Quora calculated the number of votes that would have been cast by each state in every U.S. presidential election since 1864 if every state had cast its electoral votes in proportion to its popular votes.
"The biggest difference I found was that 12 of those 39 elections (1880, 1892, 1901, 1909, 1913, 1925, 1948, 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016) would have had to be decided by the U.S. House of Representatives due to nobody receiving a majority of presidential electoral votes."
https://qr.ae/p25FCt
I attest the tinyurl is safe
I was wondering about that. Thanks for the research.
Such a system would enable third-party spoilers, yes, so there would ideally be a top-two apportionment. Because the U.S. House solution is awful, given that it stands frequently to negate the popular vote. I'd like to see which party controlled the House after those no-majority elections and so how many of them would have gone to the candidate who did not prevail in the popular vote.
Hypothetically, I’ve wondered if some type of parliamentary system would be better. Of course we’re very fearful that a vengeful autocrat will become leader of this country, so issues regarding the electoral college and voting systems are a focus. If Harris becomes president, the aftermath will be interesting. Will the right wing crazies accept reality? Will Trump, given his age, become irrelevant to them? They should know that if Harris is elected, a Republican could easily replace her in four years.
In my opinion, thinking that the Electoral College system is going to change is a pipe dream. After EVERY election---and I have been through lots and lots of elections---there's always a big hew and cry about abolishing or reforming the EC. And then.....nothing happens. The issue goes away----until the next election, and the cycle begins again. I'm an optimistic person for most things, but discussing this is, in my opinion, futile. EC reform/abolishing is unfortunately never going to happen.
Ditto on Spot Hero. The best way to take the pressure off of finding a parking spot the day or night of an event.
Re: CPS Teachers in the suburbs. I have some data on this based on a sample size of 1. In 5th grade in a school in Evanston, one of my kids had a teacher who had previously been a teacher at CPS. She was not good. The perception of her is that she did not put in the time and effort that was expected in that school. She did not last even the entire school year.
Clearly this is statistically significant. But it made me wonder if expectation of teachers in CPS is lower than that in high achieving suburban schools.
Add to that the absurd residency requirement for CPS teachers, which signals that quality of education is not a priority in the City. Imagine if Northwestern Hospital required all of its employees to live in the City. I would expect the quality of service to go way down since many of the doctors would find jobs in the suburbs.
Nothing absurd about requiring them to live in the city. Because they work for the city & city taxpayers pay for their salaries.
City taxpayers don't pay for any Northwestern Hospital workers salaries!
I've never paid attention to that residency rule before but have a vague sense the rule applies to teachers, policy, and maybe firefighters. Do you know if in-district residency is required for ALL city employees? And is that also the case for all County employees, and all State employees? Just curious.
It applies to all city employees. I don't know about Cook County but I remember Medical Examiner Robert Stein lived in Highland Park, in Lake County!
I know that NYC & Los Angeles don't have those rules, NYC cops live all over & I've read about LA cops living a hundred miles away from the city.
My point is that any operation in Chicago would be much worse off if it restricted itself to employing only city residents. I picked the hospital just to have a concrete example. It follows that the quality of what CPS does could be made much better if they were permitted to hire people outside of the city. What taxpayers pay for in a teacher is the service they provide in their job, which they can do even if they go home every day to the suburbs.
Getting more states into the National Popular Compact would destroy the Electoral College.
As for the White Sox, it's obvious that the Angels tanked all three games against them to avoid being the answer to a trivia question in the future.
Then we come to Brandon Johnson, certainly the single person with the least common sense to be mayor is a long, long time. His pathetic lie yesterday that he never demanded that Pedro Martinez be removed as CPS CEO is disgraceful. Now what happens is that no side on any issue will ever trust him again to keep his word on any deals.
And as for his moronic decision to kill off Shot Spotter, so far the police have discovered two people shot to death a couple of days after they were shot, because no one called 911 over any shots fired. So the serious question there is, would Shot Spotter have saved their lives?
Now I hear loud reports about once a week in my neighborhood, but I never call, because I actually can't tell if it's guns shots or firecrackers, plus the reports are not close enough for me to determine where they came from.
Fidelity Investments now reports its purchase of Twitter stock is now worth just 25% of what they paid for it. Musk has destroyed its value, with his insane ego, lack of discipline & wing nut politics!
The Angels didn’t tank, and in fact lost a franchise record number of games. Of course the Sox still said, “hold my beer”.
Yes they did tank all three games & Detroit also did so after clinching their playoff spot.
Garry . . ., Tom's right.
No he's not!
The Angels are just really terrible.
I liked Lori Lightfoot. She rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but I thought she was sincere and talented. Mayor of Chicago is a nearly impossible job.
Yes, the National Popular Compact seems the way to go: requires no constitutional amendment, and several states are already on board, although not nearly enough, yet. The basics: states pass laws that require their electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote, but only when participating states' electoral votes equal or exceed the 271 required for victory. In recent years, at least, the outcome of the popular vote has been clear long before Electoral College voting takes place.
I don't want to pile on the Sox but wins and losses determine who finishes in what position in the standings and who goes to the playoffs and ultimately who wins the World Series. By that measure the 2024 Sox are the worst ever. Using winning percentage, while mathematically correct is a dodge whereby this terrible team can say "hey we are fifth on THAT list." Get real, you're the worst.
A team or movie or date is always compared to what your expectations were before hand. In the case of the 1962 Mets I think people did not expect much of an expansion team. Sox fans did not expect a team worse than last years.
In this same vein, I think the Cubs had a more disappointing season. Missed the playoffs by a game last year, made some additions and still no playoffs. The Sox were predicted to lose 90 or so games. Prediction exceeded!
Thinking positive, the White Sox did win 41 games somehow.
Regarding the accumulation of wealth, I strongly recommend that PS readers read (or listen to - it's an awesome listen) Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century". Piketty is a French economist who has taught at MIT and LSE. In his book, he argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, which causes future increases in wealth inequality. Although its a 24 hour listen, it's worth every minute. He is able to break down complex economic principles into very reader/listener-friendly digestible bites.
Also, good Visual Quips of the Week (VQotW). Corn Maze is clearly the best, with Death to your houseplants - particularly relevant to most - a good second.
I saw Stacey Davis-Gates interviewed last night. She - who does not send her kids to CPS schools - is living in a dream world when it comes to seeking more funds for the CPS.
I heartily agree with JakeH's take on the issues facing CPS and its teachers.
Regarding Spot Hero and retail in general, a good experience will get a customer to return; a bad experience may lose a customer for life. Good companies understand that and provide good customer support. Other companies… go out of business.
I’m not a fan of getting rid of the electoral college, but I might go along with a method like the states that give electors based on vote in congressional districts. I don’t know if this could be passed, but I know eliminating the college altogether would not.
The most important factor in student performance is home environment, and to a somewhat lesser extent, neighborhood. I don’t know the answer to this problem. One thing that comes to mind is, for example, that the more you practice the basics — reading, writing, arithmetic, the better you get at them, which is true for most endeavors. I just hope we’re not impeding in any way a student who wants to practice those things.
While I appreciate the shout-out I'm not sure a simple transcription error merits a separate piece in today's post, much another "d'oh" in Thursday's post. Just relax and let it go. It was already corrected in the original post.
If all the states were willing to apportion their Electoral votes by popular vote they should also be willing to pass a Constitutional amendment to abolish the EC outright, which doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime I think we should focus on overhauling the 1929 law capping the number of representatives at 435, which has led to larger states losing voting power in Congress and in the Electoral College. If we based the number of representatives on the total population divided by the population of the smallest state, we would have 140 more members in the House now, and the same bump in EC votes allotted.
I use SpotHero (and ParkWhiz and ParkChirp) a lot, and mostly they work great. I'm always amused when SpotHero and ParkWhiz have the same garage at different prices. ParkWhiz tends to have a little more in the way of hidden "service fees" than SpotHero does, but they're still sometimes cheaper overall. And it's typically a fraction of the price of just driving up to a garage and paying the rack rate.
I have had occasional snags with SpotHero, and always got made whole, but sometimes more easily than others. Once I had reserved a spot under the L tracks near Steppenwolf, only to arrive to no empty spaces. I called, and they zapped me a pass to a garage less than a block away. But another time I reserved a spot behind an apartment building -- "any of 5" -- and all 5 were occupied. I called but only got hold music; tried again later and also only hold music. I ended up paying a valet who handles Steppenwolf and nearby restaurants. I emailed SpotHero, requesting a refund for the occupied space I paid for, and suggested they could credit me for the overage I paid by going elsewhere. They eventually did, but it took several rounds of email, and each time they said, "next time you should call." (Even though in each mail I explained that I DID call and no one answered.)
I use Parkwhiz. I hate it when the only space you can get is one of those on an alley behind an apartment building. Either they are already occupied, or they are so tight they give me the willies.
While I am in favor of higher tax rates for the wealthy, I have always had a problem with the simplistic argument that in the 1950s we had a really high top tax bracket, and we also built up the middle class, therefore it must be true that one led to the other. The economic situation in the 1950s was somewhat unique with Europe still rebuilding after WWII and East Asia mired in multiple civil wars, leaving US businesses with a glut of manufacturing capacity and little to no competition around the world. It would have been weird if the US economy hadn't boomed. The middle class born from that boom was more a result of high union membership and government regulation than anything else.
Thanks. Very interesting analysis.
Scarcely did anyone pay the 90% rate. There was no great increase in revenue. There were 4 recessions between 1949 - 1960. It's always been more about the loopholes than the top rates.
Ouch, re Jake H. on my Mincing Rascals comments last week! Even more painfully, I agree with Jake. I didn’t mean to imply that CPS teachers alone can overcome all the problems many of their students unfortunately bring with them when they come from difficult and often traumatic home environments. I’d go back and listen for how badly I stated my thought, but I can’t stand the sound of my own voice. I’m a creature of the written word still striving to speak extemporaneously, I freely admit it. Anyway, of course Jake is completely correct that even poor teachers will have higher-testing students when those students come from involved, usually higher income households, and even great teachers may not be able to make much of a dent in high poverty schools. The point I meant to make is that no longer revealing student performance by school, as CPS intends to do, solves nothing and denies parents the ability to know how their kids’ school is doing, and/or it denies them the ability to try to get their kids into better performing schools. Both points are important. We all know that students are hugely influenced by their peers. A school where students are already testing well is a better environment for your own student. And without knowing how your student’s school is performing each year, you can’t even tell if the student academics are improving or deteriorating. Parents have a right to basic information about school academic performance. Sorry I didn’t get that across verbally!
I heard your comments on Mincing Rascals and agree with you. Most well meaning parents want their children to be in classes with academically motivated and well behaved kids and it can have a larger role in their child's performance than the actual teacher. I am assuming, however, that even though CPS will not use test scores to rate schools, the information will still be available through the state report cards, motivated parents will still find it and schools will still have reputations for high or low academic achievement. So bottom line will be that kids who are lucky enough to be born to parents that are motivated to seek academic excellence for their kids will still probably flock to those schools. That is unless CPS denies them those opportunities by limiting magnet, charter or select enrollment schools or limiting transportation to and from those schools. The current practice of denying transportation to kids from troubled neighborhoods to these high quality schools seems like it will only make the high performing schools less diverse racially and economically. I know there are labor shortages everywhere but the suburban districts seem to be able to hire enough bus drivers to transport kids.