Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Campaign 2010
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Challenges and withdrawals begin
Posted in:
* Mike Lawrence vents about the lack of competitive legislative politics and state gridlock in general…
Three dozen of the 118 House members have no foe, and scores have only token opposition. On the Senate side, eight of the 21 seats on the ballot apparently are uncontested, and few races loom as truly competitive.
All of which would be less difficult to abide if the fortification of incumbents led to fortitude in policymaking. But the vast majority have ducked the hard decisions on taxes and spending essential to fiscal stability.
The absence of courage, the contempt for responsible governance, the lack of fiscal integrity, the surrender to political expediency and self-preservation severely test the resolve of those who have resisted term limits as a pseudo-solution that empowers unelected bureaucrats and legislative staff. Yet, we need to get past the frustration and redouble our efforts to force later primaries, a constituent-oriented method of drawing legislative districts and more accountability from rank-and-file lawmakers as well as their leaders.
* The Question: Do you support term limits for legislators and statewide officials? Explain thoroughly, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Campaign 2010
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Challenges and withdrawals begin
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
No. We have term limits already - they are called elections. If you implement term limits you interfere with the legislature’s institutional memory and give the governor and bureaucracy even more power than they have now.
The solution to the problem of unbeatable incumbents is not to restrict who can run but to make the system of electing people fairer. Computer drawn districts and comprehensive campaign finance and ethics reform are better ways to go.
Comment by LouisXIV Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:03 am
Ordinary legislators turn over. The problem is with the lack of turnover of legislative leaders.
They are the ones who need term limits.
Comment by Cal Skinner Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:11 am
no. as much as i want to see churning in the political system, politicians should be recognized for the expertise that they bring to the table. if they can’t be replaced by someone who has similar (or better) expertise, then we all lose. term limits sound like a good idea (they have them in florida), but the consequences are often miserable. it doesn’t make the system better, in the end…
Comment by bored now Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:13 am
I think it’s a desperation move. The main problem with term limits is that it shifts power from the legislators to the lobbyists, which is the last thing we need to have happen. Why? Because it means that legislators are at an inherent disadvantage to lobbyists when it comes to experience. You’ve got a fourth or fifth year assemblyman who’s speaker — this is a common situation in California — and a bunch of lobbyists with 15 to 20 years’ experience leading him around by the nose.
Likewise with the civil service. Inexperienced legislators are at a great disadvantage in terms of knowledge vis a vis senior department heads and other career appointments in the executive branch. And, in practice, political ones too where they’ve had the requisite prior experience.
In the end, pluralism is a crucial ingredient of the US political system. If you’re going to throw that out by strongly weakening one of the major powers in the system, you want to know that what’s replacing it is better. And in this case, I’m not sure that it is.
It also means tossing out the good with the bad. Do you think Jack Welch’s management style at GE would have worked if, instead of dumping the worst ten percent every year in the style of the military, he instituted a term limit? Of course not. There should be a meritocracy and putting limits on a term of office directly violates that.
Better to think of other institutional reforms, such as revisiting the question of floor leaders’ power, supermajority voting after May 31, instituting open primaries, and other means of making incumbents work.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:13 am
Absolutely not, there are plenty of good legislators who have been in public office a long time and have good ideas and are good legislators. This is one of those classic good government ideas of folks that think about politics too much that ignores the fact that the new folks could be just as bad. The rules are the rules. The democrats used them to take power, the republicans should use them to take back power.
There was a nice editorial in the washington post over the weekend that the new governor who is limited to one term has to use the current governors budget the first 2 years, meaning he gets half a term to come up with plans. They’ve also had decent leaders like Mark Warner and George Allen who’ve had their terms cut short by the limits.
Comment by shore Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:14 am
We have built-in term limits.
They are called elections.
Comment by Johnny USA Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:14 am
I’m not dead set against it - but would answer no. Effective legislators should not be constrained by term limits. Disrupting potential continuity and momentum (good or bad) via an artificial and arbitrary construct sounds like a means to stifle the democratic process.
Meaningful redistricting reform is the answer here.
Comment by The Doc Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:14 am
I understand why term-limits could be palatable to the general public. But I am opposed to the idea. Electoral lethargy cannot be cured with a “throws the bums out every six years” mentality.
I have seen first-hand how term-limits negatively affected other states, like Michigan and Ohio. Legislatures lose “institutional memory” with term-limits and that’s a bad thing. It’s conceivable that a person at the beginning of their second term could become Speaker or Senate President. Staffs gain far too much power because with term-limits, legislators come and go but staff members remain.
And, last, but not least, contract lobbyists gain more power with term-limits.
Comment by Joe in the Know Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:16 am
No.
Never was.
Don’t like it that a president is term limited.
We live in a democracy and voters decide who represents them through the primary and election processes. When these processes become corrupted, as is the case today, these process need to be reviewed and reformed.
You don’t get the right results using these kinds of anti-democratic methods. Fix the problems causing the need for a term limit. Term limits did not reform the election process, instead it nullified it. There was no longer a reason for doing the election process fairly because term limits created a false fix.
We cannot create self-cleaning governments. We have the responsibility to clean them. If we strive to create a government that we believe no longer needs our direction, then we have created an undemocratic institution that will trample our civil rights with immunity.
Term limits are bandages that do not produce the cure needed within our corrupted political systems.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:20 am
No. It’s a false panacea. Keep a laser-like focus on fair, professional, nonpartisan redistricting, campaign finance reform–and maybe leadership term limits. If elections were fairer, turnover would take care of itself.
Comment by Ray del Camino Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:20 am
The anti-term limits crowd fails to take into account human nature and the psychology of incumbency. The first question when anyone challenges an incumbent has to answer is “Why should X lose their job?”. That’s before they can sell themselves on their merits. If they can get a majority of voters to answer yes to the first question, then you get to “Why is Y any better?”.
We need to have a political system that takes into account human nature, not one that discards it because it shouldn’t be that way (and it shouldn’t).
Comment by John Bambenek Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:24 am
no, it’s an arbitrary reduction in electors’ choice, and the point about losing legislative memory is a very good one. Mr. Skinner makes an excellent point about possibly having term limits on leadership positions (as unlikely as this seems to me).
Comment by corvax Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:27 am
Legislators-No. This is an area in which we voters have to take some responsibility. State agency heads-yes. Legislative leaders–yes, for the leadership office, not the seat.
When a substantial proportion of legislators are
green, the power of corporate lobbyists, unions,
long-time state bureacrats and even long-term legislative staff increases exponentially. They already have too much power. And few of their activities are visible to the average taxpayer,
notwithstanding efforts towards government transparency.
State agency heads should have four or six year unrenewable terms. These folks, if they do anything (some don’t) tend to accomplish their best work in the beginning, when they establish new agency priorities, eliminate programs that don’t work (hopefully), upgrade agency culture, and implement new programs. After a couple of years, they lose their ability to lead and the priority becomes saving their jobs and those of their cronies. The world is moving fast. We need state agency executives who can move fast with it. Currently, few do.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:33 am
Yes.
Illinois has been plagued for years with “machines” and “fiefdoms” of various sorts (and it’s not a problem exclusive to either party). We will not be able to break from our shameful history of corruption and incompetence unless we reconfigure the rules of the game.
Comment by Anon and on... Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:34 am
No, term limits are a con, and a disenfranchising one at that. There’s never been a reasonable argument that they’ll lead to “better” government, whatever that is in the eyes of the beholder.
We should remember, too, even the most powerful elected officials have been laid low by the voters. Probably the most powerful Congressman in my lifetime, Rosty, had the safest of safe seats, an incomparable warchest and the backing of every establishment type on the planet.
But a few stamps, a couple of purloined chairs and the odd senior on the hood of a Caddy, and he gets beat by an unemployed nobody.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:35 am
No for most of the reasons noted above. I would like to see term limits on House Speaker and Senate President. However, the powers that be would probably just insert a “puppet”.
Comment by insider Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:35 am
Illinois needs term limits desperately. Term limits encourage the participation of more people in that the house or senate seat if your area will be definitely be open at least every 6-8 years. Therefore, if it were ever your ambition to represent your neighbors in the state house, you will get a fair opportunity within a few years.
Jay Hoffman is my state rep and has been since 1991. He has over $500,000 in his campaign account. It is literally impossible for anyone, D or R, to take a realistic shot at that seat because of 1) the length of time he has been there, 2) the money he has raised, and 3) the power/favor he has accumulated among regional and statewide organizations. Is he the best and only person capable of representing us in Springfield, democrat or republican? Absolutely not. But because of his money, power, and years he will have the seat as long as he likes, rather than as long as the voters want him there. Therefore, the voters don’t really have a choice, which is why we need term limits.
Comment by A-Town Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:36 am
We have term limits, it is called election day every two years. Regarding the House, does it really matter, can you term limit a mushroom?
Comment by ivoted4judy Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:38 am
Nope-a-rama-bama.
And can we go on to the next level…would someone …Lawrence or any other academic ( i.e. Brad McMillan, Redfield too)…. please lead us through a vision of what type of state these “competitive” elections would produce.
Smarter kids, cleaner rivers, clearer skies, smoother roads ?????
Actually the legislature has taken stands on all the issues listed in the column, but apparently Lawrence did not like the outcome.
The notion that term limits, some new remap system that resolves impasse without pulling a name from a hat AND satisfies the requirements of the voting right act and/or later primaries will produce the critics’ prefered outcomes is really without foundation.
My guess is that you find fewer votes for new tax hikes or program cuts, more control by the special interests (utilities, banks, predatory lenders, etc)and perhaps a little more staff influence.
Some day I hope the media starts to call the crtics and themselves on the mythology of “competitive” elections.
Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:39 am
It’s an ax instead of a scalpel. There are rules changes that should be made to more evenly distribute power that could prevent legislators from building more power then the system is designed to handle. For example, the Speaker gets to determine staffing levels for all the legislators.
Comment by old pol Mike Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:39 am
There is something to be said for not having a permanent political class. People who have been successful in private careers bring much to the table that career pols do not have.
I would prefer not to have statutory term limits, but the other side of the equation needs modification. It would seem to me that the requirements for getting on the ballot need reform.
Many of the standards for getting on the ballot are stacked in favor of the existing parties. Making the standards more even handed would allow more candidates to get on the ballot perhaps increasing the diversity of the backgrounds of the legislators.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:40 am
Show me a state where it has contibuted to better government. Frequent turnover means too little institutional knowledge about important issues and how to get things done.
Comment by ANAL Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:42 am
Make every district coin toss R or D every ten years, and you won’t need to limit terms, (including leadership terms.)
Comment by My Kind of Town Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:45 am
Term limits encourage better and more honest public servants. In the mind of a politician, being in the General Assembly should be viewed as a temporary public service rather than as a career move that will hopefully result in a pension someday. Far too many politicians hold onto their seats for decades. Some even keep them until death only to have their friends back home appoint their spouse to replace them. As if there is no one else in the district capable of doing the job. What an insult.
Comment by A-Town Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:47 am
My main concern with Springfield is corruption, and term limits do not necessarily solve the problem of corruption, because they throw out both the good with the bad.
I’d much rather have real campaign finance reform — publicly funded elections, limits on individual donations, and a total ban on corporate and union PACs to any political candidate or party. If people compete with a level playing field and can win multiple terms, then I think that is fair.
To Mr. Lawrence’s point, the Green Party has been sounding the alarm on this point all year, particularly when it comes to HB 723, although few in the media picked up on it. HB723, which was recently passed into law, makes slating for state legislative candidates very, very difficult, and will all but ensure an increase in uncontested elections.
Also, it’s premature for Mr. Lawrence to lament the fact that three dozen state rep candidates have no foe, when we know that that number will probably double before too long as candidates get kicked off the ballot.
Comment by Patrick Kelly Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:47 am
No for rank-and-file legislators, yes for legislative leaders, for many of the same reasons others have outlined above.
Across-the-board term limits are not conducive to a more thoughtful approach to elections; they’re the antithesis of it. Although we live in a day and age that does not reward thoughtfulness, we ought to pursue every opportunity to press for it - and protect it.
Comment by Linus Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:47 am
Yes. Term limits prevent the tyranny of majority rule. I don’t care that Mike Madigan’s district wants to re-elect Madigan because he can provide goodies via other House districts. Term limits deter the long run politician and the voters who put them there. It’s virtually impossible to beat someone like Madigan with a huge campaign warchest.
Comment by Steve Bartin Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:47 am
Yes we already have term limits they are called elections. If the public keeps voting in the same people who do not produce they are getting the government they deserve. Term limits like campaign contribution limits really change nothing and make things worst for the most part.
Comment by sweaty freddy Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:48 am
I don’t agree with term limits, if someone represents their constituents well they should be able to remain in office as long as that continues. I think redistricting reform would be a more fair way of achieving accountability.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:52 am
No, I don’t. It isn’t the individual legislator’s fault that no individual or group can mount a popular enough movement to unseat them. Why punish people who are successful? There is a referendum on the job they are doing every two years.
Comment by heet101 Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:53 am
I can live with them but do not think they are necessary. What we really need is actual campaign finance reform, redistricting reform and we need to change the primary date. These three items would go along way to solve some of our problems, however what we need most of all is an educated public that is not so apathetic.
Comment by ahoy Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:59 am
Mr. Lawrence makes some good points about the lack of “fortitude,” however, term limits wouldn’t provide the strength of will to make tough, but necessary, votes. In many cases, legislators would use their terms in office to establish business relationships for when their terms ran out. Establishing an Iowa-like citizen redistricting process perhaps may help weaken the leadership’s grip on members’ political future. However, the reality is that the legislature is a reflection of the electorate’s interest and knowledge of state government issues. Nothing can replace an informed and motivated voter.
Comment by Louis Howe Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:59 am
I like term limits much more than I like recall. I think it would be great if our rules said the leadership had to be rotated among all the majority party members randomly. But that is never going to happen.
For term limits what I would suggest is to have the positive turnover effect of them, without shutting the door on good legislators, by letting them run again after sitting out one term. So, they could work two terms, then would have to sit out a term before they could run again. I’m still thinking thru the implications about what they would be allowed to do while sitting out, I think they would have to be allowed to run for something else if they wanted to.
Of course since we’re human, the instant you put up a new rule, the bad apples are going to try to find a way around it. Would this system as I propose lead to other legislators “bearding” for the ones that sit out, basically “placeholder” candidates that take their cues from someone in the wings we didn’t elect? Well, we have that now.
However, I like that idea of making these guys work harder for their monopolies and to force them to be more responsive to their constituencies.
Comment by Some Guy Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:00 am
Statewide constitutional officers, yes. Two terms for governor, 2 or 3 for other constitutionals. Legislators, no.
Legislative leadership positions like House Speaker and Senate Prez, definitely yes. These people have near total power over legislation that effects ALL state residents, but only the residents who live in their districts have the power to vote them in or out.
Comment by Secret Square Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:08 am
Considering the current state of affairs in Illinois, is it really possible to do worse than what we have now???
Just sayin.
Comment by Springfield Sceptic Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:18 am
Absolutely yes on term limits. They eliminate the career politican.
Comment by Lee Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:24 am
Term limits are a bad idea that should be placed on the trash heap of history.
Mike Lawrence sees the lack of competitive elections as evidence for the need for term limits. I like Mike, but I see something else in the lack of competitive elections:
1. Politics and politicians have a bad reputation, so why enter that line of work?
2. The state is beyond broke, who wants to take up that job?
3. The Republican Party is bankrupt of ideas, the party of “No,” limited to a vocal minority representing a minority of districts. They can’t compete with Democrats in elections not because the playing field is tilted against them, but because they have nothing to offer on a level playing field.
4. Unlike the fractures in the GOP that played out in NY over gay rights and abortion, the Democratic Party is fairly unified, or Democrats that are anti-choice and anti-gun control represent districts where that reflects the views of most voters,if not most Democrats. That makes Democratic primary challenges less likely.
Even so, 14 of the 71 Democrats in the Illinois House face primary challenges…more than one-fifth. That’s pretty competitive in my book: a lot more competitive than Congress.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:24 am
No because Mike Madigan couldn’t be speaker anymore.
Comment by Bill Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:43 am
Bill makes a good point.
House Republicans, Senate Republicans, and House Democrats have all seen leadership changes in different years, albeit for different reasons.
What Mike Lawrence and the Chicago Tribune seem to want is a Mike Madigan term limit bill.
Why?
Because he’s corrupt? Quite the contrary. Madigan, unlike others (Jim Edgar, ahem), hasn’t been tainted by prosecutions or wrong-doing. Moreover, Madigan stood up to the corrupting influence of Blagojevich.
Because he has too much power? Laughable. Madigan’s office has no more institutional power than it did when Lee Daniels held it. Less institutional power than John Cullerton holds, given that the Senate confirms executive appointments, and members are less reliant on leadership for re-election.
Mike Madigan’s true power comes from his ability to do his job better than anyone else, and that’s what the Chicago Tribune (still in bankruptcy?) hates about him.
People loath Mike Madigan because he’s successful, pure and simple. He’s risen to become speaker based on the merits of his abilities. Contrary to popular opinion, he holds on to that office and his members’ loyalty not because he holds the purse strings, but because he’s the most successful political leader, strategist and tactician in Illinois history.
Only in Illinois could people rail against politicians advancing based on their merit as leaders.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:04 pm
Instead of asking legislative term limit opinions, let us ask how we can achieve 80 to 100% voter turnout. Mediocrity in governance (the need for term limits) is a symptom of voter apathy. If voter participation exponentially increases, issues such as term limits and campaign finance reform become moot. Voter apathy is the disease. Treat the disease and its nagging symptoms will subside.
Comment by Bird Man Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:10 pm
Johnny USA - Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:14 am:
“We have built-in term limits.
They are called elections.”
Ummm how’s that working out for us? Incumbents skew laws for their own political benefit. Look no further than Illinois’ ridiculously gerrymandered districts… Our current lack of term limits is one reason that redistricting reform is still a pipe dream.
Term limits could actually put the public back into “public service”. It’s a way to mitigate power & nepotism. How can anyone say that it could risk prematurely getting rid of talented politicans with a straight face?! I don’t think there’s a shortage of talented, capable people in Illinois - I think the current system enables a small, entitled group of individuals to monopolize it.
Comment by Indy Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:22 pm
Whatwhat…Mike Lawrence is as honorable and upstanding as any person in the political process for the last two decades.
Stop the unnecessary personal shots.
Comment by 4 percent Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:22 pm
Doesn’t it seem that the term limit movement, if you can call it that, only has any legs when the economy is down?
To answer the question, no. Horrible public policy.
Comment by Cosmic Charlie Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:25 pm
I’ve got a much better idea than term limits:
Prohibit elected officials from holding multiple government offices, and require them to resign from their current office when filing for another office.
The problem isn’t people staying in one place for too long, its people abusing their current duties to get themselves a promotion.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:39 pm
YELLOW DOG
I agree in total with your take on this issue. My own experience and belief has led me to conclude it takes several terms in office to even begin to grasp the situation and ramifications of legislation being considered.
There is no doubt Madigan has enormous influence on all that goes on in Springfield. Yet, no one can point to any situation where he has misused the stature or power of his office. I don’t see any investigations or charges being filed against the Speaker.
The naysayers and Republicans calling for “reform” are jealous of the intelligence and moxie of the Speaker. If you want real reform the citizens should get off their a– and get to the polls and vote. The voters have the power to make a change if they are dissatisfied. Term limits for the House come every 2 years: and for the Senate every 4 years.
Comment by MOON Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:40 pm
I support a later primary election date (Spring as opposed to Winter), better redistricting procedures and lower petition signature requirements (why should a Cook County judicial candidate need to collect almost as many signatures as a statewide candidate in order to avoid an objection and secure a place on the ballot?), but term limits, no.
Comment by Honest Abe Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:51 pm
Absolutely support Term Limits.
Complacency is the enemy of progress in all aspects of life and most certainly in politics. Even our perceived best are sitting on their hands, raking in the cash through special committees, pay raises, heavy lobbying efforts, and outright greed. I have a new low tolerance for all of our elected officials as almost all have sold out. They are an embarrassment to our country. I will not vote for one single incumbent….not one!
Mike Lawrence is spot on!!
Comment by Justice Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 1:09 pm
First of all, the more I view the process in Springfield, the more I wonder why anyone would want to get involved in the mess.
That being said, if terms were limited–lets say 10 years for the sake of discussion–why would anyone want to basically put his or her life on “hold” for ten years so they can serve in the legislature when they could be in the private sector or public sector earning credits toward a pension or building their 401(k). I believe that term limits would actually discourage good, qualified people from running for office.
Comment by Old Shepherd Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 1:31 pm
I’m all in favor of institutional memory and also for better solutions on redistricting. The answer to this question is no. If you want to talk about term-limits for legislative leaders I have one answer for that. We can remove the position of Senate President and give that duty back to the Lt. Governor. That’s one solution.
Comment by Levois Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 1:35 pm
Thanks MOON.
P.S. If you want more people to run for office, and you want to limit the perceived influence of legislative leaders as fundraisers-in-chief, not to mention special interests, I’ve got four words for you:
“PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 1:51 pm
If term limits are good enough for the highest office in the land, why not all other offices? When politicians first get in, I truely believe they are wanting to do the right thing for their voters. After awhile they beging to lose touch with them. After a few more elections they have so much money built up in their war chest they are untouchable and then TOTALLY Lose touch with their voters.
Term limits would eliminate this, would eliminate a lot of the corruption going on and would allow for fresh ideas.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 2:19 pm
I have recently had a change of opinion on this issue. Where I used to be in the camp that touted elections as potential tools for the limitation of terms, I now support the concept. What changed my thinking was the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. I heard one reporter/pundit (I’m sorry I don’t remember who) classify the opening of that Senate seat as “a once in a generation” phenomena. That stunned me and made me realize that public service in the legislature (State or Federal) was never intended to be a career, and certainly not something that was supposed to span generations.
Comment by indupage Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 2:29 pm
The following was posted at 10:39…..four hours later no one has really addressed the points with the possible exception of those who note this whole push is really at Madigan who has stood up to special interests, media power mongers and inexperienced reformers. Let’s try again….
Nope-a-rama-bama.
And can we go on to the next level…would someone …Lawrence or any other academic ( i.e. Brad McMillan, Redfield too)…. please lead us through a vision of what type of state these “competitive” elections would produce.
Smarter kids, cleaner rivers, clearer skies, smoother roads ?????
Actually the legislature has taken stands on all the issues listed in the column, but apparently Lawrence did not like the outcome.
The notion that term limits, some new remap system that resolves impasse without pulling a name from a hat AND satisfies the requirements of the voting right act and/or later primaries will produce the critics’ prefered outcomes is really without foundation.
My guess is that you find fewer votes for new tax hikes or program cuts, more control by the special interests (utilities, banks, predatory lenders, etc)and perhaps a little more staff influence.
Some day I hope the media starts to call the crtics and themselves on the mythology of “competitive” elections.
Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 2:31 pm
We get the government we deserve. If we don’t like it, we can change it at the next election. Maybe we have to reach the “critical mass of bad government” to spur change. But it’s hard to believe we haven’t reached it yet in Illinois.
Comment by One of the 35 Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 2:43 pm
No, for most of the reasons already stated. I like having experienced politicians with experience.
I would not put term limits on surgeons, lawyers or accountants either. I am not sure when we deicded experience was a bad thing.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 3:04 pm
I used to be strongly opposed. But given the state of our state, county and city, I’m coming around to the belief that it might be the only answer to ensure circulation of new blood in the system. Don’t feel strongly yet on the pro side though.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 3:12 pm
Nope. I’m good with elections.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 3:33 pm
Not crazy about term limits but we need some way to keep these power hungry folks accountable. Saying that elections can curtail the current abuse is questionable. Look at how few of the incumbants even have opposition much less capable opposition. The ” movers, shakers and hacks ” want these people back in power so that they can retain their hold on the largese in whatever form that may be.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 4:48 pm
YDD, let’s say for the sake of argument your assertion that MJM is the most successful political leader, strategist and tactician in Illinois history is correct.
Let’s also assume MJM has held power solely based on his merit as a leader.
The trouble is MJM’s leadership has benefitted his loyal caucus more than it has the citizens of the State of Illinois.
How else do you explain veteran legislators eternally death locked in political stalemate?
Incumbents rule to get reelected. They don’t rule to solve Illinois’ problems unless there is a political advantage. And while political battles are won, the ruling party solidifys its political power, and Illinois mires deeper in debt.
Comment by My Kind of Town Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 4:59 pm
By all means, we should have term limits, publicly financed elections, and then ALL of our problems with corruption will be solved:) Because everyone with then and only then work soley for the good of all the people and not themselves! I almost forgot, everything will be fair also because no one will break any rules or pass their seat to a family member or anything like that. There will be no chicanery! Now that we have solved this problem, we can now all sing kumbaya!
Comment by Richard Afflis Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 8:14 pm
No on term limits.
It only empowers lobbyists, legislative staff and agency staff. Term limits will enable the mandarins to run the palace, ensuring less accountability, not more.
Instead, please implement Iowa-style redistricting. There must be a way to adopt a non-partisan mapping system that respects communities (including minority representation) and conforms to the constitution. Truly compact and contiguous districts, drawn by computer and approved by voters, is the way to increase the number of competitive elections in Illinois.
Term limits is a dumb panacea, with plenty of unintended consequences. I wanted a Con-Con for this explicit reason. Maybe next time.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:23 pm
I agree with one out of 35. I have a hard time saying that our legislature is systematically bad when most citizens don’t know who their legislators are, let alone what they stand for or how they vote.
Comment by Quizzical Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:43 pm
I agree with one out of 35. I have a hard time saying that our legislature is systematically bad when most citizens don’t know who their legislators are, let alone what they stand for or how they vote.
Comment by Quizzical Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:43 pm
Term limits are not the answer. Elected officials at all levels were established to be citizen-politician and have evolved over the years into a professional political class. The best way to “limit” terms is to remove some of the “perks” of office, such as eliminating pensions for elected officials, eliminating political positions that are redundant or no longer are needed due to changes in technology or population growth, ie: township government where a majority of a township is within an incorporated area, positions such as county auditor and county recorder where these functions could be done by other existing offices. By removing “perks” of office and eliminating nonessential public offices, the trend toward individuals being “career politicians” would lose some of its appeal and profit motive.
Comment by WRMN Politics Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 9:50 am