Voting for Change In a One-Party State

[billroper]

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I walked the short distance to my polling place today in suburban Cook County, Illinois, being careful not to step in the goose grease in the playground at the school. There was no line to vote. I was voter 161. They were expecting me, as my wife, daisy_knotwise had gone in a few minutes earlier while I was watching the kids at home.

It was a singularly depressing ballot. I only knew the name of the Republican candidate for Congress, because marsgov had mentioned it on his LJ a few days before. I read the Chicago Tribune daily Monday through Friday and haven't seen this race mentioned once, which should give you an idea of exactly how well gerrymandered my district is. The Republicans didn't even bother to put up a candidate in one of our state races, nor in any of the judicial races save one.

I did, as was my wont, vote to turn out all the judges on the judicial retention ballot.

And I voted for a new Constitutional Convention here in Illinois. Apparently, we elect the representatives to the convention. I've talked with Gretchen about running for the position, unlikely as I'd be to get elected.

But who knows? Stranger things have happened.

Comments

[carolf.livejournal.com]

And I voted for a new Constitutional Convention here in Illinois. Apparently, we elect the representatives to the convention.

You are either braver or less risk-averse than I, sir!

Opening constitutions to change is, for me, serious business and not to be done lightly. It's dangerous enough to do when a single burning issue is to be discussed -- not that I think any opening would not invite other discussions, planned or not. It is truly risky to me to do so just because we haven't done it in a while.

But, I don't live there, anymore, so ... If you are elected as a rep, it will be fascinating to hear your tales. What an adventure!

[billroper]

I believe that our redistricting process in Illinois is thoroughly broken and that the only hope of changing it to something similar to the Iowa Plan is a Constitutional Convention. Thus, I voted for it.

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

Clearly the problem is where you live. We had three Republican judges on our ballot, and no Democrats. We have a Republican congresscritter as well. You just chose poorly staying in Cook County and moving to the Ninth District.

[billroper]

Given the state of our government in Cook County, I find that somewhat hard to disagree with. Certainly I'd be saving on sales tax. :)

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

Feel free to come up to Lake County to spend your money any time you like. Your tax dollars are welcome here and you won't spend as much as you would closer to home (our gas is cheaper, too).

[ericcoleman]

I did, as was my wont, vote to turn out all the judges on the judicial retention ballot.

So, does it frighten you to think that in one way, we vote exactly the same.

[dave-ifversen.livejournal.com]

While here in DuPage County, the Democrats hardly put anybody up - most of the people running were Republican. Fortunately, the County officials do a mostly good job, so it doesn't really matter what party they run in.

The thing that weirded me out, when I first moved to Illinois, was that you didn't need to be a medical doctor to be coroner. I've often toyed with the idea of running for the position, as I think it would be an interesting job, and I probably have more medical experience than most of the people who do run (although my experience is with critters rather than people). From reading the job description, it sounds like a "Gil Grissom" kind of job, directing/managing the forensic pathologists and techs collecting evidence.

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

I spoke to the Lake County Coroner earlier this year. I discovered that he has a very good sense of humor and does a lot more than you would think, partly trying to ensure that he doesn't meet people in a professional capacity, things like driver safety.

He told me that the number one question he is asked is: "Why do we elect the coroner?" His response...he doesn't know either.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

That is odd. I was personally wondering why Sheriff, Treasurer, and Drain Commissioner are party tickets. Why the heck would anyone care if the drain commissioner is a Republican or Democrat? I can't imagine how party affiliation would affect how any of those people did their jobs.

[tollermom]

You have a Drain Commissioner?

How... entertaining. *blink*

What does a Drain Commissioner do?

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

Manages all the drainage systems in the county. In rural counties, the drainage systems involve hundreds of miles of drains to which tile systems that are largely privately owned and installed on private farms connect. This is where excess ground water goes.
They require a fair amount of maintenance, the flow has to be monitored and in some cases directed, new development may require large new infrastructure, etc.

Next to roads, it's probably the single largest capital expense for a county. In some farming counties, it's probably MORE expensive than roads.

No matter where you live, you have someone who does this job. In metro areas, it's probably managed by the city, but in our area, there's no city that takes up the majority of the county, many smaller cities are involved, so county-wide management is needed. It's a commission, therefore its head is a commissioner.

In what way is this "entertaining?"

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

In Illinois, Recorder of Deeds is an elected position.

Things that seem silly today presumbly become elected positions because at some time in history there was a controversy about it that got enough politically connected people involved to DO SOMETHING (the mayor appointed his drunk brother in law dog catcher, and he really screwed the pooch (sorry about that... ok not really) -- we don't want that to happen again, so let's elect the dog catcher!), and once it's established as an elected position, it's really hard to change it. Political parties like it because it gives them more power, and ordinary people generally don't care who the coroner, drain commissioner, or recorder of deeds is unless they're totally incompetent, and even then they seldom blame the party that nominated them.

[kizoku42.livejournal.com]

In much of Michigan the land would be swamp without good drains. Whether or not it should be elective is open to debate but it's an important job.

[pheltzer.livejournal.com]

When I was living in Miami I noticed that Dog Catcher was in fact an elected position. Sure they called it Animal Control Commissioner or some such, but it was an elected and politicized position.

[gorgeousgary]

You mean there's at least one place in this great nation where someone could literally find themselves not even able to be elected to Dog Catcher?

Tee-hee! 8-)

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I live in a district that's equally gerrymandered, swamping the Democratic cities near where I live with a huge staunchly Republican rural district that covers the whole eastern edge of the state from here in the middle on down.

As to the con-con, I don't think what we have is good enough (at the state level) that we need to be afraid to touch it. I really want to get a recall provision in so that the public can get rid of jerks like Blagojevich or Ryan before him without waiting four years, and the legislature won't do it. There are a bunch of other things I'd like to see changed as well that can't happen any other way, including citizen initiatives on any subject, putting some rules in place to limit the power of the leadership in the state legislature, and abolishing property taxes for funding schools. I am really pissed off that groups with state pensions are spreading scare stories that if there is a con-con they will lose their pensions. I have news for all those folks: if the state's fiscal management doesn't turn around in a big way real soon, they won't have any pensions regardless of what the constutition says, and if by some miracle we do get the pension system back on sound footing, they'll be secure anyway. If you really want to protect your pensions, you ought to start by making sure that more than 5 people (or 3 if one party has a big majority in the legislature) actually have any say on the state budget, so you should be in the forefront of approving the con-con.

I also have a bunch of more pie-in-the-sky political reforms that I'd love to see at least argued before a con-con, such as preferential voting in all state elections, joining the compact to cast the state's electoral votes for the national popular vote winner if most other states do too, and eliminating the barriers to third party candidates.

What would be on your agenda for a constitutional convention if we had one?

[billroper]

Oh, I'd start with trying to put in something resembling the Iowa Plan for redistricting. Districts that were less heavily gerrymandered would tend to elect more moderates than we do now, which I think would be a good thing.

I think that it's reasonable, since you bring it up, to make it as easy for a third-party candidate to get on the ballot as it is for a Republican or Democrat. I also think that a recall provision -- but not an easy recall, as I think you should have a supermajority -- would be a good idea. I think that the current rules limiting the voters' ability to put initiatives on the ballot need to be revised and possibly eliminated completely.

I am not in favor of preferential voting or effectively eliminating the Electoral College. In the latter case, I view the Electoral College as a useful firewall against vote fraud -- there is a limit to how many electoral votes you can win by cheating in any given jurisdiction.

Much as I dislike my property tax bill, I'm not sure that abolishing property taxes for funding schools is a good idea. I rather like the idea that my community can raise more taxes to improve schooling locally, regardless of what the rest of the state might choose.

Oh, and we really need to fix the amendatory veto, because it's clearly been broken in current usage.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'd start with trying to put in something resembling the Iowa Plan for redistricting. Districts that were less heavily gerrymandered would tend to elect more moderates than we do now, which I think would be a good thing.

I'm not familiar with the Iowa plan, but I certainly agree in general that the way our districts are drawn is cancerous.

a recall provision -- but not an easy recall

Agreed in principle. I think it should take a lot of signatures to get it onto the ballot, and if they don't get a certain fraction of the total eligible vote (not just those who actually show up for a special election), then the recall fails regardless of the percentage. Perhaps a fraction of the eligible vote equal to 50% of the total votes for the last national general election.

I am not in favor of preferential voting

We will probably have to agree to disagree, but I'd be interested to hear what you think is wrong with preferential voting in general. (There are a lot of different counting systems. The Australian ballot is actually just about the worst version.)

In the latter case, I view the Electoral College as a useful firewall against vote fraud

I think there is less vote fraud in reality, either today or in modern history, than all the talk about it would suggest, but to the extent that it is a problem, I think the electoral college makes it much worse -- a few thousand votes can flip a whole large state when the real vote is close. The odds of flipping the nationwide popular vote totals seem a lot lower -- a systematic nationwide fraud would be very hard to get away with, and unless you credit one party with being a lot more honest than the other in general, local fraud schemes would be more likely to cancel when mixed into a bigger pool.

I rather like the idea that my community can raise more taxes to improve schooling locally

I don't think one arbitrary patch on the map should get to have much better schools than the one next door. Districts with a good tax base are willing to raise taxes to make their already good schools even better while districts with poor tax bases can't raise taxes enough to make their execrable schools merely terrible because people are already being taxed to death. I think it's quite likely that your tax rate is lower than mine (though I'm sure your bill is more than mine -- you could fit my house into your living room), but I'm sure your local schools are better than mine. And there are many rural districts that are a lot worse off than mine.)

Oh, and we really need to fix the amendatory veto

We certainly need to fix how the current governor does things. I'm not sure if that means spelling out the amendatory veto more specifically in the constitution, or just in getting the other branches to be more aggressive in opposing the governor when he decides he's God. Has the supreme court actually weighed in on whether Blagojevich's rewrite-the-whole-law style of amendatory veto is constitutional? If they said it wasn't, would it change anything?

[blaurentnv.livejournal.com]

If you get a chance for a say, don't use California's recall system. The recall should be separate from the election of the replacement; otherwise, the issues get confused.

[billroper]

I'd noticed that. :)

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

Some one intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable running as a politician?

You're right stranger things have happened. Go for it!

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

Ditto this!

[kizoku42.livejournal.com]

Gerrymandering isn't unique to Illinois. Here in Michigan the Republican majority used the last census to force popular Democrats into the same district.

[billroper]

I'm aware that it's not unique to Illinois. I don't much like it anywhere.

[archiver-tim.livejournal.com]

What do you think of a unicameral legistrater? We need two houses on the national level, but having one house in a state might be all we can afford...particularly when the downsizeing of goverment should occur along with downsizing of a state's employers.

[billroper]

It's uncommon, but certainly worth looking at.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I think even in states with very small populations it's a specious argument that we "can't afford" a bicameral legislature. Legislators are a tiny part of the government. I'm much more concerned that the more you try to save money by spending less on the legislature, the more you have overworked legislators not able to devote enough time to actually understand issues before they pass laws. Having to get through two different houses of a legislature makes it harder for laws on obscure subjects to slide through before people notice the problems with them.