Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Oy, part 102,948
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Madigan letter; Week in Review (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
First, the background.
A candidate for the state House wants voters to be able to choose primary election ballots in private.Schaumburg Township and Lake County’s Moraine Township around Highland Park are among 15 in the state so far that will poll voters Nov. 7 about the possibility of keeping their political party affiliations out of the public record. Now, when people vote in a primary election, they must choose a Republican or Democratic ballot, and their choice is documented.
Sam Cahnman hopes his advisory referendum, which enjoyed a test run in the city of Springfield last March, will persuade the state legislature to keep the party affiliations private.
The question asks, “Shall Illinois adopt an open primary law, allowing voters to cast a secret ballot in primary elections by eliminating the current requirement that voters publicly declare their party?â€
Cahnman is a Sangamon County board member and the Democratic nominee for the 99th state House district, which includes Springfield.
He said 80 percent of voters in the Springfield referendum favored having their party affiliation kept private.
“And those are the more partisan voters (in a primary),†Cahnman said. “I believe in a general election it will be even higher.â€
While recording voters’ party affiliation helps party leaders in their campaign planning, Cahnman believes it has a negative effect on voter turnout.
He said many people stay away from the polls during primaries out of a fear that their ballot choice will be used against them in the future.
Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think it will ever be implemented in Illinois? Why or why not on both questions.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 4:39 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Oy, part 102,948
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Madigan letter; Week in Review (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think it is a wonderful idea! I was one of those 80% in Springfield. The lists that I have used during campaign work in the past have at times been outdated, etc - people move and so on.
I have another recommendation perhaps a non-partisan ballot - so one can choose people on both sides like the general election.
Comment by Marta Elena Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 6:18 am
At first I did not like the idea because of the negative effect it would have on political planning, but at this point I think I support the change. I think increased voter turnout is more important than government run by the people who show up now. I really believe voter turnout in primaries will increase if people can vote and not be in fear of losing their job. Look at the mess the current Blagojevich administration have us in now with their hiring practice. With over 20 years of experiencing state hiring practices of both Republicans and Democrats, they both checked the primary voter rolls. With an open primary they can only check to see if you participate.
I am for open primaries.
Comment by Ray Coleman Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 6:24 am
The concept is honorable and admirable. However, I do not want the likes of “W,” Newt Gingrich, Frank Watson, and Judy Baar Topinka picking which person is the Democratic nominee. Let Democrats choose Democrats and Republicans choose Republicans. The intent of “political primary’s” is for political parties to pick “their” candidate.
Comment by SilverBackDemocrat Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 6:27 am
I am all for the open primary. I moved to Springfield 22 years ago and the first thing I was told by one of my neighbors when I moved in was not to vote in local primaries if I wanted a state job.
It’s all well and good for the two parties to pick their candidates, but what about the independents who like people from both parties and would like to see the people we support on the ballot?
Few candidates can afford to run anymore because of having to attract big donors, so I don’t think the ballots would be very long with everyone added to it. But those who wish to run should be one the ballot, all of them, and give voters a real choice, not a pre-programmed one by two politicals parties. In today’s corrupt political climate, the two parties are practically indistinguishable from each other.
Comment by Disgusted Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 7:02 am
This is a stupid idea. The sole purpose of the Primary is for the parties to choose their candidates. If a person isn’t willing to say what party they are with, then they should have no say so in the primary election. The primary is not an open election and should not be.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 7:05 am
When you have a bunch of little dictators in office like you do now a lot of people ,except the ones on their side, is afraid to vote.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 7:35 am
Nobody sent Sam Cahnman and we don’t do nuthin’ for no one nobody sent!
Forgettabotit — and nobody gets hurt.
Comment by Chicago Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 7:50 am
Under the open primary, a voter would still be able to vote for only one party in a given election, so party raiding should not be a bigger problem than it is now.
Comment by anonymous Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 8:01 am
It would get voter turnout up, but it appears some of our democratic pols don’t want that. It would mean they might have to WORK in the precints to ensure that they got thier candidates elected. Committemen would have to talk to all of the voters in thier district.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 8:17 am
Is it a good idea? Perhaps, in some ways. The Democratic Machine in Chicago built and has maintained it’s monolithic power in part on people’s fear of drawing a Republican ballot before the eyes of the Democratic “checker” in the polling place (these fears run from being unable to get a city job, to a family member losing his, to being unable to get a tree trimmed or a garbage can replaced, all the way to whatever irrational fears people can conceive). It would likely result in more Republican ballots cast in Chicago, and likely fewer Democratic ballots. On the downside, parties use primary lists in order to identify and reach their base; this would be hard to do if the politically inactive majority did not have to openly pull their primary ballots.
Will it ever happen? I’d guess no. The powers that be (committeemen) would consider the unknown outcome to be a threat to themselves.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 8:19 am
I think it’s a dandy idea. I see no reason why political affiliation should be a public matter. I’m a Democrat on the West side, so I don’t care who knows it, but I can understand why my neighbor, who is a Republican does not want for people to know that about it, as it instantly identifies him as a member of a minority.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 8:28 am
The open primary idea is OK as long as voter names are kept private. I have always seen people that I would like to support regardless of party because I like what they say/do. There are others I thought were not worth a vote, but their name happened to be on the Primary ballot and they are the only choice due to party affiliation. Have several good friends who are state workers. They never vote in primaries because they know it will be tracked. They claimed the purges in DOT were related to primary vote registration.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 8:40 am
Since it is apparent that elected officials cannot abide by the Rutan Law, I think it would be wonderful. I bet if you look in any state building where the Higher administration officials work there are voting records on desk. I also believe if the general public throughout Illinois knew people get access to their voting records, they will pass this by more than 70%
Comment by Wheres the leadership??? Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 8:49 am
It is a good idea. There is no public interest served in keeping this information public. “Building a good voter file” is not in the public interest. There could be an argument about campaign costs, but again probably doesn’t meet the smell test. This is a great idea, too bad it won’t happen here.
Comment by Goodbye Napoleon Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 9:29 am
The two parties’ bases continue to shrink leaving only the most devoted party faithful, then those well-meaning but narrow-minded party loyalists support candidates and enact policies that are even more polarizing and thereby drive away even more people. It is a death spiral and contributes to the general dissatisfaction with the Republican and Democratic parties.
I am in the middle. I almost always split my ticket and have supported candidates from both parties. Sometimes I am voting “for” someone and sometimes I have to vote “against” someone. To participate in the primaries I have to look at the candidates and decide which races will be the most important for me to vote on, and I will have to forego voting on others I might care about. There are a lot of people like me. At least a third of the population is “in the middle” and more recent numbers are suggesting that we are now a majority, larger than either party.
When someone from the middle tries to get involved in government for the purpose of making things better the party loyalists will pull their primary records and their contribution records. “What! You didn’t blindly support every one of our candidates! You gave money to a challenger! You have no place in our party.” This attitude puts a lot of pressure on people to either strategically lie or to become detached from politics.
I am not suggesting that we in the middle are a homogenous unit and therefore represent one political ideology, however we, in our plurality, are important to both parties as they try to fashion a governing majority. In that sense, doesn’t it make sense that the parties should be reaching out to people in the middle and begging our participation rather than pushing us away?
Open the primaries to us, open jobs to us, open your minds to us… the party that does it best will grow. Or keep shutting us out and become more and more marginalized with a narrow ideology. Perhaps an inclusive view would lessen the pressure for multiple party ballot access.
Comment by Middle Majority Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 9:34 am
Primaries originally were intended to allow party members to choose candidates. What it has evolved into is a pre-election media frenzy. Today’s focus is not just picking candidates, but building recognition and hype for the general election.
Considering what primaries have become, open primaries are the way to go.
Anything we can do to prevent politicians from choosing us when they draw their fiefdoms and districts, the freer the elections.
Sam is right, and his proposal will pass.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 9:35 am
While I’m no fan of Cahnman, I think it’s a great idea but one that will never become a reality - how do you draw districts and target voters if you do not know how they vote.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 9:58 am
This will never pass in Chicago.
The only thing keeping Chicago from turning into Detroit or Cleveland is the fact we have a benevolent dictatorship, whose only cost seems to be slightly higher taxes & slightly less personal freedom.
Fair trade, I say.
Comment by Uncle Stosh Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 9:59 am
It’s insane. It’s one more step in making our state and our nation ungovernable.
Let’s remember what a primary is: a mechanism for a PARTY to select a candidate to run under it’s banner. It’s not a general pleblicite on who should hold office. It’s an internal political decision as to whom a parties standard bearer should be.
As political parties have become more and more diluted as entities with the only incentive for a candidate to run under a party banner being to access the ballot and not necessarily to adhere to anything the party may or may not stand for, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone or any party to implement a coherent and cooridinated policy program. Instead what we end up with (in state gov’t. as an example) is 118 fiefdoms in the House, 59 fiefdoms in the Senate, a Lordship with the Governor and various Dukes among the other elected officials all working to enhance their own self interest instead of the interest or policies of a party. That’s a simply insane way to run anything.
This holds true for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Communists, Silly Party, whomever. To some degree, this is a systemic weakness planned for by the framers as part of the separation of powers. However, to make that separation work for the enactment of policy, parties have long been the glue that permit compromises to be reached, coherent goals to be set out and achieved and some semblance of working rules to be created. Of course there are gross examples of the system failing and this will cause many of you to scoff at these notions. However, over the course of time these tenets have held true.
This idea is simply one more to dilute that system and create more chaos and anarchy. Sure, it’s a populist idea, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a good one. If so, every idea Pat Quinn or Mike Boland have ever uttered would be gospel. I think not.
The next step to eliminate the parties that so many would demonize is to promote government by ballot initiative. While this is another popular idea to many, it again contributes to the ungovernbility of a jurisdiction. There are so many issues out there that really require more thought and consideration than can be contained in a campaign soundbite. While the legislative process is certainly full of those who think no more deeply than that, there are some who do provide critical thought to the matters before them (on both sides of the aisle) and therefore permit the crafting of better or at least less damaging and more acceptable policy enactments. To look at how ungovernable ballot initiatives make a state, just look west to California where a complex myriad of “voter initiatives” have created a web of conflicting laws and a prescriptive base of statutes that has made governing this massive hulk of a state virtually impossible in any sane, coordinated manner. They badly need a constitutional convention out there to wipe the slate clean and start over.
So, I’ll get off my soapbox now, except to depart with one final thought. . .may the gods help us when Sam Cahnman is the source of policy ideas for our state.
Comment by Lt. Guv Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 10:11 am
lt. gov, very well said.
Comment by colt 45 Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 10:41 am
Most have correctly pointed out the purpose of primaries. Perhaps more should get active in one party or the other OR start your and work to attract followers.
I realize it is much easier to whine about powerbrokers and blah blah blah, but it would be nice if the handwringers to try to actually work an issue just once. And then accept reality
I chuckled at “Disgusted” who said his SPI neighbors not to vote in primaries if he wanted a state job, because the real story was that a job seeker needed a voter registration card and a receipt from Doc Adams Pancake Barn before they would let you take the so-called civil service test. Of course now Rutan and the union brain trust have solved all the problems.
P.S. Turnout for the Chanman landslide was about 12% in the week after the tornado
Comment by Reddbyrd Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 10:56 am
I am sympathetic to the arguments about an open primary weakening the parties, etc. I’ve been a (generally) proud democrat all my life (tho our pathetic Governor pushed me into taking an R ballot in March–so I could help get a moderate on the ballot to run against him). To me the real bottom line is the likelihood that we would get better candidates. Right now the Republicans have to run to the right in the primary, and the Dems to the left. Not a lot of room for middle of the road candidates in primaries. An open primary would allow more moderate candidates to get on the ballot without having to sell their souls to the right-wing loonies or left-wing loonies. Too often middle-of-the-road voters are left with two candidates–one too far left, the other too far right. An open primary would make it possible for more middle-of-the-road candidates to get nominated. Let’s give it a try!
Comment by IVOTE! Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 11:20 am
Whether or not it’s a good idea (I tend to think it is) is certainly debatable.
This point isn’t: it got Sammy Cahnman elected in the March primary. Oh, that plus a lazy & arrogant opponent.
Poe will jump on the bandwagon (in fact, I’m sure he already has) & is certain to work harder than Redpath. But, this issue could be huge and, if he plays his cards right, be enough to elect Sam Cahnman to the house….SAM CAHNMAN!!!!!!!
Comment by beantown Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 11:25 am
God Forbid we would ever advocate a system in which more voters are encouraged to turn out. In the most free nation on the planet, our voter turnout pales in comparison to every other industrialized nation. I blame both sides for this as we put clamps down on open primaries, third-party candidates and public financing of campaigns. Open primaries would be a good way for Illinois to shed the negative image we as a state collectively share. With the Chicago Patronage trial, the George Ryan trial, Blago’s clout list and the two ex-CMS employees suing the state, we need a facelift. Sam Cahnman may be annoying but his idea is great.
The people who routinely bash this idea are party hacks who are more concerned about keeping the same people in power and keeping the status quo intact. Since a large amount of the country is starting to shun both sides of the aisle, it should be apparent to both parties that America is fed up with politics and partisanship. If an open primary is what the doctor ordered, so be it.
Think for a minute what the Fouding Fathers would say. Do people really think that 40% turnout of REGISTERED voters in a midterm election is what Washington fought for and what Hancock financed? Do people believe that Thomas Jefferson would be more concerned about voters being more apt to vote or would he be more concerned with a party boss being nominated (again) for a position with 20% turnout?
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 11:41 am
This is a GREAT idea. But Illinois politicos will make sure that this never really sees the light of day. Sam had guts to propose this, even though it, of course, plays very well to his district of state employees shaking in fear ever four years. I hope Sam wins the election just based even on this issue…it took courage.
Comment by Criminal Enterprise Called Illinois Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 11:43 am
It seems that many people here are confused — the ballot would not let you jump from party to party as you go down the ballot, simply it just removes from the public record who voted in what primary.
And furthermore, everyone on this blog is soooo sheltered — talking about state jobs and political affiliation — do you realize how few people this applies to throughout the state?
And as for the average person… who’s pulling voting records simply to harass someone… I don’t believe that is happening even if you are a Democrat in Barrington.
This will only make campaigns even more expensive for candidates as candidates will have to target everyone. Let the primary stand for its intended purpose and let Repubs target their voters and Dems target their voters.
Lastly, the average citizen doesn’t even understand the language in the referendum… it just sounds good them so they vote for it.. they don’t fully comprehend what it means.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 11:47 am
It is a terrific notion. It is a fact that with the present system we have Americans afraid to vote for fear of reprisals. WTF is that??? With our men and women dying in foreign lands ostensibly to bring them democracy, the current system here at home is the most UN-American system I can think of. For those of you who live out away from metropolitan areas, who don’t believe the stories of intimidation and favoritism based on the registration list, I’m here to tell you it is VERY real. I was the only registered dem in my whole section and for years under the repubs I got the short stick on raises and promotions. You might think that now the tide has turned, I would relish having the advantage over the co-workers, but you’d be wrong. I want the practice eliminated, and everyone on a level playing field. Real “merit” comp! Imagine!
As for how likely it is, I think if they don’t also keep a list of who supports it, you’ll find it gets a surprising amount of votes. People have forgotten how important a secret ballot is in giving the oppressed a voice, and in letting people of every persuasion say how they really feel.
Look at this blog. Do you think more than a handful of state or wannabe state people would EVER post what they really think if they all had to go by their real names? No. Only the most secure and powerful people, and the most lickspittle toadies, currying their favor, would post here. True, you will get a few haters and such using the cloak of anonymity to throw in useless contributions, but a few of those are easily filtered out by Rich’s moderation, and it’s a small price to pay for getting a larger number of useful people to participate.
As to how this affects campaign planning, fundraising, and the gerrymandering of districts, boo freaking hoo. Lets get the maps back to actually representing regions that make sense.
I could say that because I don’t have the freaking STAZI looking over my shoulder here.
Comment by But everyone knew her as Nancy Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 12:18 pm
Nancy, you have obviously never run a campaign or run for meaningful elected office.
You don’t understand how impossible it would be to campaign on the local level without raising tremendous amounts of money and having huge campign troops. This is because you would actually be trying to reach every voter in a district door to door and with mailrs instead of targeting an obvious base.
It would make it impossible for any upstart to challenge an incumbent. It would turn local elections into mirrors of what happens in Washington DC, where incumbents get re-elected 98% of the time.
We can revisit this when you get campaign finance reform passed. Until then, siddown and shaddap.
Comment by Chicago Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 12:48 pm
My understanding is that in states with open primaries voter turn out is not much changed. Lets keep in mind the possibility that citizens just don’t cart.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 12:55 pm
If the 2 parties were not so entrenched and self-protecting as to stack the deck heavily against independent and 3rd party challenges to their power, I would be more sympathetic to their concerns that primary voting should be restricted to party members. However, since they co-own a monopoly on political power in the state and nation, it is more than fair that us citizens of whatever stripe be allowed the greatest access possible to participate in the primary process.
Ideally, I’d favor the ability for every voter to vote in both primaries with no party identification required of the voter, but I would accept private ballot access as a small first step in the right direction. If the 2 parties want to restrict ballot access, let’s see them give up their monopoly. It’s a different and changing world today, and the parties need to catch up tho the fact that lock-step party membership is fading into the past…and with good reason.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 1:07 pm
Chicago, your post is a good example why I side with Nancy. Your fear or laziness is no defense.
Comment by Gregor Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 1:16 pm
I’ve not bothered to read some of the longer rantings posted but here’s my take on this. I’m an election judge in my precinct. On any given primary day, we have at the most a 10 percent turnout. That means that 10 percent of the people in my precinct who bother to register to vote are making the determination of who is going to be on the November ballot for each party. That folks is not a mandate of the general population. This past primary, 5 percent showed up. We had a blizzard at 4 a.m. and that made the difference. My precinct has about 525 registered voters. We have probably 1,500 people who live in the precinct. So out of the 1/3 who bothered to register to vote (500), 50 showed up to make a selection of candidates. That’s a little over 3 percent of the people in my precinct making a decision for the rest.
However, on a general election day, we will have one of the highest turnouts in our city - around 80 percent of the registered voters. Still those results are nothing to brag about but it shoots the percentage up to about 27 percent of the people making a decision for the rest of the residents in my precinct.
There’s a lot of voter apathy out there and I see it every single election. However, getting rid of the closed primary would be a big step forward in my opinion. I wish I had a nickel for every person in the general election who says they would be at the primary if they didn’t have to declare a ballot. “It’s nobody’s business” is the standard comment I hear. And they are absolutely correct. It is no one’s business. Plain and simple.
Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 1:38 pm
Lt. Guv - you are SO WRONG. I could not disagree with your more. The primary is a mechanism for the PEOPLE to select a candidate to run under a party’s banner. The party has put their people on the ballot. It’s now the people’s turn at the ballot box.
Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 1:43 pm
The entrenched would love this new law. They have a good idea who their voters are and who their contributors are and will target them over and over again. Those trying to get into politics and running for office for the very first time would be the most disadvantaged of the bunch. They will be going after everyone in every precinct and spreading their resources too thinly.
Rather than opening up the process, it makes it more difficult for newcomers to enter.
Louis G. Atsaves
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 2:52 pm
So what the Lt. Gov is essentially saying is that it is beneficial and right for Illinois to have a select handful of people deciding who is going to run in November without the input from the majority of the voters in the first place. That’s elitist. Why even bother voting in November when you didn’t have a choice in who was running, unless you want to publically declare yourself a Democrat or Republican, which, of course, carries its own set of consequesnces. Democrat or Republican is a label I would rather not be stuck with, but would like to have a chance to decide who is going to face one another in the Fall.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 2:53 pm
No little e, the primary is for Rs and Ds to select their candidates. If you do not have a political affiliation, the only reason you would vote in a primary (by independent ballot) is for a tax referendum. The whole point of declaring which party you want is getting the loyal party followers out picking a candidate. I don’t want some closet Republican picking my party’s candidate. If you are apolitical, the primaries are no place for you. If you really want to have a say in what political candidates run, then help a campaign and quit bothering us partisans.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 2:56 pm
Little Egypt. You are so correct. They just do not get it. This is a vote for the party. If you do not want to join a party, please stay home. It is not your election.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 2:59 pm
Why does everyone think that primaries should be open to everyone? This is the parties’ time to decide. I personally think you should have to register with the state as a “Republican,” “Democrat,” or Independent. And if you register as a Republican, you can only take a Republican or Independent ballot, if you register as a democrat only be able to take democratic or independent. And if you register as an independent, that is it for you. Because is it really okay when democrats take R ballots and make sure Judy gets the nod. Is it okay when Repubs take D ballots to ensure a John Kerry primary win? What people really need to do, instead of being so secretive you don’t know who they are, is to realize that nobody is unbiased. Everyone has life experiences that make them who they are. They should know that, take comfort in it, and live by it. Stop pretending to be “open-minded” when I have never met a single “open-minded” person in my entire life. We need to get over this trendy pretending to be non-partisan, because everybody leans one way or another or has no political beliefs at all.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 3:05 pm
This would not stop R’s and D’s from choosing their person to run. It is just a way to keep the ESTABLISHMENT from knowing who called what ballot. The data has been misused, people loose jobs and it is no ones business what ballot I call for.
I am not a big fan of Sam, but this is one where he has hit a walkoff grand slam.
Comment by Wheres the leadership??? Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 3:17 pm
Six Degrees, I agree that more parties and independent candidates should have better access to the ballot.
To others like Little Egypt who are so opposed to what I stated earlier, please keep that fact in mind.
The problem here is not letting those with a vested interest in a political party select their own candidates. . .that is how it should be. The problem is the restrictive ballot access laws in Illinois that are very specifically designed to make the bar higher for 3rd party candidates and independent candidates. That’s what needs correcting.
I’m all for more competition. However, if you’re running as a Republican, then Republicans have the right to select you as their candidate. Same holds true for Democrats, Libertarians and Sillies. If a candidate does not want to be affiliated with a party - fine. Run as an independent. They should have every reasonable opportunity to do so and I would support efforts to change the law to provide better ballot access.
However, to ignore the importance of political parties as the glue in the system is to ignore one of the primary unwritten rules on how policy is enacted. Further, to deny the voters the choice of electing people of like-minded positions based on a partisan affiliation and to eliminate my choice of who represents me as a partisan is undemocratic.
I think we can all agree that there are problems inherent within the system. The big challenge will be on agreeing on what those problems are.
Comment by Lt. Guv Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 5:03 pm
In response to zatoichi 8:40 a.m. They claimed the purges in DOT were related to primary vote registration.
This claim is correct. I was told by a high ranking IDOT administration employee that voter records were reviewed and used to determine which Rutan exempt employees were terminated, material reorganization lay-offs, and who to promote and who not to.
Now, us taxpayers are having to foot IDOT’s legal fees for the wrongful terminations. I think Martin, Stout and Doubet should have to pay the legal bill. Guilty - Guilty - Guilty.
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 5:13 pm
I predict the advisory referendums will all pass easily, and that a bill to implement the open primary will never see the light of day in the General Assembly. Perhaps it could be an appropriate issue for Con-Con ‘08.
Anon 9:58 writes, . You’d still have the overall results from a district; you ‘d know how many voters pulled an R ballot and how many a D. You just wouldn’t know their identities.
Comment by respectful Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 5:16 pm
All the “mumbo-jumbo” about state employees, etc. is pathetic. The Republicans were in power for almost 3 decades, and “they” are the reason for Rutan, etc. Now, they are out of power, and they no longer have their “juice card.” They “hate” being out of power because they think they are entitled to being in power. Since they are no longer in power, they are crying “foul.” The system used to be so “crooked” that a person did not have a chance for a state job unless you stuffed Republican envelopes, put yard signs in your yard and voted in the Republican primary. I know this and most people do to. My Dad had to do this; I refused to do it. Therefore, I did not get a state job back in the 80’s or mid 90’s until the hiring system was “changed.” In addition, the majority of people in this state are not state employees. For people who want “gubment” out of their lives’, the Republicans sure did and do want those “gubment” jobs.
Comment by SilverBackDemocrat Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 6:28 pm
Party affiliations should be kept private, period. It is extremely upsetting to get a letter from one party asking about what ‘they’ have done wrong since the last election, and why I did not elect,take ‘their’ ballot at primary time. (Notice the word elect.)
What an invasion of privacy, but not really I guess, since primaries aren’t designed to be private; they’re designed to party public. They are anything but private!
I say, one ballot for all voters during primary time. Each party will survive, of that I’m certain. Besides, maybe a new private primary will get both parites to be more responsive, or responsible to voters. Lifes lesson prove time and time again, that being kept in the dark makes us humble, and better prepared. Afterall, isn’t life a crapshoot anyway!
Comment by anon Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 9:12 pm
if the dems win one more time the sangamon county Rs will support Sam’s idea
Comment by in awe Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 9:35 pm
Respectful - you are SO RIGHT. This will never see the light of day as legislation.
Lovie, just when I see a hard line Dem come to the polling place and expect to give him a Dem ballot, he calls a Repub and vice versa. Why? Because there is such a thing as cross-over voting. See just because you call one party in a primary does not mean you must always call that party. There are a few loyal voters in my precinct who you could not keep away from the polls and they come in to vote in a primary for the person, not the party. This state has forgotten that the primary is for the PEOPLE to select whom they want to run in the general. The party may decide who will run in the primary but thank God there is usually a choice of either the party’s person or some other person who has stepped out into no man’s land and decided to buck the system. Sam Cahnman did just that. It wasn’t that his opponent was not a likeable person or that he did not appropriately campaign. The people chose the candidate they wanted and not the one the party wanted. That my friend is what we call a democracy. And that is why I will never miss an opportunity to vote.
Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, Jun 1, 06 @ 10:04 pm
“There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why…I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
I wholeheartedly agree with Robert F. Kennedy’s quote. Many of you say you like the open primary, but it will never pass. A defeatest attitude is only sure to yield one thing–defeat.
It is as plain as day that the people of this State are overwhelming in support of the open primary. Once this is demonstrated in advisory referendums across the State, legislators will face the choice of either going along with the will of the people or being moved aside by the vote of the people. Since, as all political junkies know, self-preservation is the number one objective of any politician, they will opt to go along with the will of the people and the open primary will become law.
P.S. The point made by “But everyone knew her as Nancy” that almost nobody on this blog (but me) posts their real name and that allows them to say what they really think is one of the best I’ve heard yet for the open primary. Isn’t that the purpose of the secret ballot in a democracy–to let citizens vote how they really feel without fear of retribution? That’s all the open primary does–gives primary voters a completely secret ballot.
Comment by Sam Cahnman Friday, Jun 2, 06 @ 1:27 pm
Meh, we should just nominate people to run at a state convention. Run it like the Iowa caucus. Because random non-party people voting in the primary is the exact reason we get so many wishy washy candidates that are RINOs.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Friday, Jun 2, 06 @ 10:25 pm
Forgive my ignorance, but Illinois already has an “open primary” system, as described in the Illinois Election Code. The General Primary Election is meant to be the time every 2 years for each registered voter to make a public declaration of their political party affiliation among the 2 established political parties. This is a choice every voter can make, and they have the freedom to vote in a different political party’s primary election. A privilege of declaring a political party every two years is direct participation in the nomination of the political party’s candidates for the General Election in November.
While Sam Conman’s idea is noble, it is flawed. Making it a secret which party’s ballot is cast is impossible to implement in a multi-ballot primary election. Under Conman’s proposal, only the voter rolls would be devoid of information about which party’s ballot a voter casts in a primary. What about the polling place? You still have poll watchers who will be recording the voters’ ballot choices. Privacy will not be protected.
To truly protect someone’s privacy, Illinois needs a single-ballot primary system. One ballot is cast, and the voter has the choice to cast votes in an election for Republican and Democrat candidates. Computers can be programmed to record votes among Republican candidates vs. votes for Democrat candidates to nominate the highest vote getter for each party for each office.
Without the single-ballot primary, voter privacy on political party choice will not be protected, even if Conman’s proposal were to become law.
Please consider my words and listen to the words of A WISE OLD MAN!
Comment by A WISE OLD MAN Saturday, Jun 3, 06 @ 2:30 pm
The open primary is a fantastic idea! It is interesting that Sam Cahnman had to overcome the opposition of both local political parties, and his primary opponent and his general election opponent. Now, all these opponents are in favor of the open primary. The obvious truth is that both political parties and the politicians who opposed Sam Cahnman and the open primary all of a sudden got courage in the wake of public opinion. The best that can be said of the others is that they are followers. Cahnman is the leader.
Comment by Mick Sunday, Jun 4, 06 @ 3:19 pm
“Why does everyone think that primaries should be open to everyone?”
Gee….maybe it’s because the primaries are paid for by taxpayers and not privately run elections paid for by the parties.
If you want to spend taxpayer dollars for your own little protected clubs, why are you surprised if the public doesn’t appreciate your arrogance?
If you really wanted to save money, you could eliminate primaries by using an instant run-off election.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 7, 06 @ 9:26 am