66 Comments - This Guy - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:05 am: In a word, heckyayoubetchasweetbippy. - S. Illinois - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:06 am: The voters of this state elected Rod Blagojevich twice. I don’t think we are qualified to make such an important decision. - b-dogg - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:09 am: heck yes. this is a democracy. i realize we don’t vote on every decision and we elect yahoos to do it for us. but, for something this big and insane it needs to be put to a vote to see how the people of the state feel about the expansion of gambling. building casinos is simply the easy way out of the funding crisis. casinos have been proven to be unsteady revenue streams. ie. not dependable enough to fund our schools and roads. and while we are voting on the casino proposal, let’s make sure there is place on the ballot to vote for a recall mechanism!! - Anon from BB - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:10 am: No. I think this would set an awful precedent. Voters already have a way to make their opinion known, through their elected representative. Ask the average voter who that is, though, and most can’t tell you. If we start putting every controversial statewide initiative up to the voters, our state reps and senators wouldn’t have to take a stand on any controversial issue, as they can just point and say “this is what the voters wanted.” I view this in the same way as recall. If you have a problem with the way your elected official has voted on an issue, campaign against them and vote them out of office. - cynically anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:12 am: Absolutely. While this Governor’s re-election does give one pause about the collective wisdom of Illinois voters, I do think we should all be able to weigh in on a subject that impacts us. It is disturbing that the Governor, who strives to appear as though he cares for “the people”, is willing to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of those with gambling problems, and those who risk funds they shouldn’t in hopes of “hitting it big”. - really now - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:14 am: We do not elect our officials to slow down processes to make the big decisions. We elect them to make those decisions. - b-dogg - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:15 am: the argument that the masses are too dumb to decide anything has always bothered me. maybe it is true. i don’t know. but if it is, how is it ever going to change?? by educating the masses with the money made from them in casinos?? - Ghost - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:16 am: Yes, this has substaintal and far reaching social and finacial impact for the State. While we elect officials to represent us, that is be our proxies, for everyday operations, this decision I think goes way beyound the implied proxy handed out at the election. Therefore the voters should have an opportunity to decided if they wish to increase gambling in IL. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:17 am: Where you stand depends on where you sit. Usually people want a referendum when they think they will lose in the legislature, but will win at the polls. The call it “democracy.” If they think they will win at the legislature on something that would lose at the polls, they call legislators “courageous” for “doing the right thing.” Legislation by plebiscite is nuts, and those supporting it do it not on principle, but expediency. - WhatsHisName - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:19 am: The SJ-R just did a poll last week asking online users whether they support a gaming expansion to take care of some of the state’s issues. Surprisingly, an overwhelming majority supported the expansion (70 something %, to 30 something %). Though the sample was fairly small (couple thousand) relative to the entire state of Illinois, it’s probably pretty accurate. - Bluefish - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:27 am: Let the legislators decide and if the voters don’t like their decision they can let ‘em know on election day. - Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:28 am: No. The horse is already out of the barn on gambling. A referendum to institute it in the first place, sure, but not on expanding it when it’s already here. Too late now. Government by referenda is also known as the Pat Quinn Keeps Himself in the News Plan. That’s what it is most effective at. - phocion - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:29 am: No. First, this is a Republic, not a Democracy. We elect representatives to carefully review the different sides to make decisions. Secondly, the gambling lobby will stop at nothing to get their way in a referendum. The news media, until very recently, has been a willing pawn in promoting the ill-advised public policy of gaming. Note one commenter mentioned a news poll that loaded the question to make this a false choice between gambling and services. - Niles Township - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:30 am: No question that we should have a referendum. In fact, I think there should be two sets of refrenda. First, a statewide vote on whether to expand gaming. Second, any city selected by the gaming board to receive a license should have its voters vote on whether they want to accept it. Casinos can have a lasting impact on a community and we deserve a right to voice our opinion even if we don’t all have friends who are going to make out on contracts and ownership interests in this deal. - Hang your Hat at Mister Kelly's - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:32 am: Absolutely, an advisory referendum should be held, and we might as well add it to the upcoming early primary elections if at all possible. Getting the people on record on this topic would afford the politicians some cover as well, because they can say they are following “the will of the people”. The important thing is how the advisory referendum question is written. The question has to be written in two parts I think, one addressing gambling and one addressing capital. The gambling promoting faction has been beating the drum for a long time now that expansion of gambling will mean no new taxes need to be raised and we can have all the capital programs and new services we want, essentially for free” because some magic leprechaun tourists will suddenly flock to Illinois to drop all their disposable income by the kettle-full. The pro gambling advocates always say, in the same breath: “this is the only way to keep your taxes from going up, and the only way we can pay for roads and schools and Chicago transit and etc.” Hogwash. Have a public referendum and let the pro and anti-gambling factions take their case to the voters. The legislature can then interpret that result in whatever fashion they think is appropriate, with the voters taking note. Everybody from the gov and 4 tops down to the average joe representative to this point has been claiming they are holding their nose and voting in more gambling against their personal wishes ONLY because of the linkages to all the other issues. Their excuse has been: “If there was another way, I would choose that over gambling”. Use the referendum to divorce the gambling issue from the rest. Then the legislature can go make those “hard, brave choices” they are so proud to claim as their purview. - He makes Ryan Look like a Saint - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:33 am: I do not think so. Voters need to be held accoutable for who they vote into office. It is up to the office holders to understand what their voters want. If they dont follow thier wishes, they should be voted out. This would set a bad precident that if a group does not like something they will push for a referendum - Just My Opinion - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:36 am: While I applaud Quinn’s efforts to try to keep Blago accountable for his campaign promises, I do believe that if this question regarding gambling expansion were to be put to the voters, it would be overwhelmingly approved. Anytime a tax dollar can be taken from anywhere other than my pocket, I’m for it. And I suspect a majority of the people in Illinois think that way as well. All a referendum will do is put off the inevitable. And why not expand legal gambling? Why should the airplanes take hundreds of our citizens on a daily basis out to Las Vegas when we could develop our own little Vegas here in the Midwest. It’s inevitable that one of the midwestern states will jump on this bandwagon and why not? Nevada on the west, Atlantic City on the east, and let Illinois rake in the big bucks for the Midwest. I’m for it, absolutely, positively, 100%, referendum or not. - Hang your Hat at Mister Kelly's - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:37 am: Don’t go by the SJ-R’s “polls”. They even changed their name from instant poll to “click your pick” after explaining the thing is completely unscientific and very open to manipulation. It’s more of a conversation starter than a scientific poll. Give me three teenagers and a broadband connection and I can make that SJ-R poll thingie give you any result you want on any question. - Palatine - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:41 am: My vote is No to the referendum idea. This is why we elect those people. I don’t like the expansion of gaming to balance the budeget. This is not a good idea. It’s time to address the inequality of our regressive tax structure and go to a graduated income tax to do this. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:42 am: If I had voted for someone who says they will as governor opposed expanding gambling in Illinois while in office, then I would expect them to be opposed to expanding gambling in Illinois after they are elected. It was Mr. Blagojevich and Mr. Quinn who made took these stands. So, did they want to tell us that their position on this issue was going to expire in less than a year? They didn’t say that they were opposed until 2008. They didn’t say that they were opposed until they found a good reason to approve it. They took the stand they did, and now they wish to change it. Now, Mr. Quinn wants to know whether we also changed our minds regarding gambling. Are we just as spineless as Blagojevich and Quinn? Pat would like to know by holding a referendum on it. Notice that he doesn’t say that the referendum would decide the issue. He says that we should be allowed to express our opinion through a referendum. Sorry Pat. Just because your boss has new political interests and no longer committed to what he was once committed to, doesn’t mean we’ve changed our minds too. We are uninterested in salving your conscience by approving your new found love of gaming. You guys took the stand and find yourself uncomfortably standing too close to a trap-door with Mr. Kelly and friends. We won’t join you. - Little Egypt - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:47 am: VanMan, you’ve just said it all and said it very eloquently, as we have become accustomed to reading from you. - Justice - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:47 am: A decision of this importance would normally fall to the vote of our representatives…… normally. But these aren’t normal times. We have a governor who can’t govern, creates disharmony, and is surrounded by chaos. We have many representatives who are swayed by fast and easy money that is dangled before them by those looking for an easy, mindless, temporary answer to our budget woes. We, the citizens have lost control of our own government. The special interests are eating us alive and the only way many of our legislators can see a way out is to increase gambling. This is not the way to be going. We need to make hard choices about reducing the freeloading programs to people who choose not to work. We need to stop some of the many programs that are handouts with no incentive to get the freeloaders off our payroll. We have overlapping programs and programs that should have been discontinued long ago. We waste more than most states have in their total budgets and are deadlocked as a government. The choice is to cut budgets, discontinue and tighten many of the give away programs, and cut spending. Relying on gambling revenues is incredible naive. We need fiscal responsible representatives and leadership with some b@#$. We the people need to take back our government. Yes to the referendum. - Sacks Romana - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 10:52 am: Yes. As Quinn points out, Blagojevich is completely going back on his campaign promise of not expanding gambling, specifically building casinos. It’s crass and mean to blame the voters for being stupid for believing Blago/Quinn in the first place, and then not letting them do anything about it because they believed them. Although, to correct Quinn a bit, leasing/selling the Illinois Lottery to pay for things (the plan they DID run on) is gambling, and that plan was only relatively less disasterous than Topinka’s casino expansion. I’ve never talked to anyone in person who supports any of the casino plans. Even the comments on this board only range on a three point scale from: “Absolute Disaster — Maybe It Will Actually Work and Not Be The Disaster We All Fear In Our Heart of Hearts — Yeah, But Don’t You Hate Taxes?” Gambling and casino expansion is NOT a certainty. And the very fact that our politicians are so in bed with the Gaming Lobby that it feels inevitable to so many is all the more reason for a state-wide referendum so that the PEOPLE can oppose such a ridiculously awful measure. It’s actually hard to think of a better and more appropiate situation where a referendum should be called for. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:10 am: S. Illinois is so right. I’d say that a referendum would make sense if it is accompanied by a serious bipartisan effort to educate the public on the pros and cons. One of the cons being that gaming is not as stable a source of income as many would have us believe. For the politicians and their friends and relatives maybe, they’ll get their cut no matter what, but as a reliable, predictable source of income for running the government in all its expensive glory…no. As to those who oppose govt by referendum, they have a point. We should be able to rely on our legislators and elected leader to make good decisions on our behalf. But they often don’t, and most are basically pawns for the special interests who fill their campaign coffers. It’s expensive and time-consuming to run for public office against an incumbent, and few have the wherewithal in time or money–we have to work, raise our families, study, care for our elderly relatives after all. That’s why so many legislators run unopposed or face only token opponents. And if you live in a gerrymandered district in Illinois, well, good luck on getting represented unless you happen to agree with the powers that be. So initiatives like recall provisions and referenda are about the only options for many of us citizens out here. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:11 am: Considering our Governors exemplary ethics. I can’t understand why anyone would question his motives for a massive gambling expansion. Surely there would be no question everything he does is above board and only for the people of Illinois. Wake-up Illinois. Let the people decide. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:14 am: A statewide referendum will cause the gambling industry to spend a bunch of money hiring political consultants. - DwightZinfandel - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:19 am: No thanks. Referenda necessarily oversimplify the options and, ironically, limit the public’s input on these matters by restricting them to an up or down vote on one proposition. I may be for the expansion of gambling, just not with city ownership. Maybe I think we should have 5 licenses and go Vegas by the Lake. No way those will be options on the ballot. Any referendum will rig the debate by limiting it to two outcomes. - kart - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:37 am: A non-binding one…sure. - Team Sleep - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:38 am: Yes, Carl, that would occur. And yes, Blago was re-elected and enough people put enough Democratic reps and senators in office to ensure MJM and Emil remained in charge. But we are talking about such a massive increase in spending and a veritable Pandora’s box of gaming licenses, contracts and ownership that three people should NOT have say-so in what could impact our state’s financial landscape drastically. However, I believe major referendums such as this must be limited in scope and frequency. For instance, we shouldn’t have a referendum for each spending quarrel that arises. But an issue as large and meaningful as the “capital plan” and gaming expansion need to be voted on by the public. Even if we had a competent governor and people at the top who got along, a referendum - especially on the day of the Presidential primary - would hopefully garner a decent amount of voters and prove we can make decisions for ourselves. - N'ville - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:40 am: Since this administration doesn’t seem to listen to the other two branches of government, I doubt they’d listen to the citizens via a non-binding referendum either. But the most interesting part of this story, at least as it was reported last night on the Chicago NBC affilitate, is that Quinn says he hasn’t spoken to the Governor in more than 6 months. I guess this follows the Governor’s pattern of not having a cabinet meeting, ever…Who does he listen to? And once again, who thinks he’d listen to a referendum? - pickles!! - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:45 am: No, i have faith our Governor and lawmakers will make the right decision for the state of Illinois (Sarcasm added) - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:48 am: Yes. Gambling is a vice which might have a negative impact (directly or indirectly) on families and communities. As such, it should be up to the “community” to decide. Once we have widespread legalized casino gambling, legalizing, regulating and taxing prostitution can’t be far behind. Dammit, if you wanna go to Vegas, go to Vegas. Please, don’t bring it here! - Tom - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:48 am: Pat “We the People” Quinn is largely responsible for the current state of Illinois politics. If it weren’t for him, we would still have proportional voting the GA and would therefore have an unaligned block of independent Democrats and Republicans who would act without bowing and scraping to the 4 tops who are now the only legislators who matter on pretty much every topic. Quinn is good at getting publicity for himself, but is generally bad for the operation of government in Illinois. - FlackerBacker - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:56 am: A referendum would be a horrible idea. We live in Illinois, not California, and we elect our leaders to make these decisions. Gambling already exists in Illinois; a referendum would accomplish nothing. - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 12:09 pm: If we had held a nationwide referendum on NAFTA, we would actually still have a fairly decent industrial economy. We wouldn’t be worrying about a local referendum on gambling for tax revenue. Yes, we technically elect our leaders to “represent” us. The problem is, they typically only look out for their own interests, which usually involves giving away our money or jobs in order to get money for themselves, their friends and relatives, their committees, and their donors. Don’t be so damned naive. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 12:17 pm: Ordinarily, I would say let our elected representatives do their jobs. We’re not living in ordinary times. The Kelly matter, Gov. Bunker, Emil Jones’ “inclusive” views on casino ownership, the possibility that the City of Chicago could own a casino (that all by itself will be joke fodder for comedians all over the world) the dubious distinction that Illinois could move in behind Nevada as #2 in gaming, and the uncertainty about the real net revenue all say to old AA that this decision should not essentially be made by 5 guys behind closed doors. Let the people vote. - plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 12:41 pm: The voters have a right to express their opinions, and to have their views respected. Those opposing the gambling referendum are most closely aligned with the pro gambling interests. Portions of Lake County were afforded the opportunity to vote on the expansion of gambling interests in Lake County a number of years ago and said no at the rate of 65 to 70%. Proponents of gambling know they will lose in a referendum, so they will create all kinds of arguments to oppose the will of the people. Gambling revenue is a lose lose for the residents/taxpayers. Whatever revenue will accrue will be from declining gambling in the legal casinos and a redirection from other entertainment venues. This leaves the society cost out of the equation. Gambling remains a win win for the political interests because it gives them a new revenue stream they can redirect to their own interests. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 12:44 pm: A referendum might be worthwhile if it allowed for a vote on increasing gaming versus eliminating ALL gaming. - Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 12:48 pm: A non-binding referendum would cost money and would waste the time of the voters. How often do the State politicians heed to or concede to the public mandate in these matters? I am not sure, but I am guessing that they have little if any impact. Again, Mr. Quinn appears well cast in his role as an attention-craving populist blowhard. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 12:52 pm: The people will vote by whether they patronize the casino. They can always have their schools opt out o fthe lottery money and pay extra fares for Pace/Metra/CTA. Lets have a referendum on a recall while we are at it. To answer the question, no. We already have gambling, this would only be an expansion. - jerry 101 - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 12:55 pm: I’m assuming that since the Constitution prohibits lawmaking by ballot box, then this would be merely an advisory referenda. Therefore, yes, absolutely, no doubt. This idiot governor made a campaign promise against expanded gambling. Amazing how quickly he’ll drop this campaign promise for the glitz of these vile casinos, while he stands by a promise not to raise sales taxes, trying to kill public transit in the process. Sorry gov, you’re going back on the wrong campaign promise. The casino one was the smart one. The no new sales taxes one was the stupid one. - Bird Man - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 12:58 pm: NO! Phocion hit the nail on the head. In a Republic, “we the people” have our chance on election day. If we don’t like the results, we again have our chance on the next election day. - Keep Smiling - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 1:16 pm: Seems to me that the referendum question would be incomplete if just about gaming. It would need to be more along the lines of: Do you support the need for a major state-wide capital bill at this time? If so, do you support a major expansion of gambling in this state to fund it? Our elected officials support the gaming bill as the best, or at leasat the most politically palatable, means for funding scores of capital projects. If a capital bill were not the desired outcome, I don’t think many elected officials would support such a huge expansion of gambling. My logic then takes me to this question… why do elected officials want a major capital bill at this time and is a capital bill the best means to achieve it? - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 1:20 pm: Yes. The gambling horse may be out of the barn, but it’s not too late to shoot it. – SCAM - Team Sleep - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 1:27 pm: One reason why I think a referendum is needed is that I don’t know if we can trust the current power structure (specifically G-Rod) to use the money as it needs or is promised to be used. How many times has the Governor and his staff rearranged funds and budget amounts and basically challenged everyone to fight him? Unless he writes in stone that he will not misappropriate revenue, a guarantee is needed. And, quite frankly, where else can we get that guarantee? It won’t come from the GA, and my faith in Lisa Madigan’s office on something like this is tepid. - Anon - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 1:27 pm: The problem with referendums is the wording of what you are voting on. At least with legislation there is the give and take and there is a bill to read. With a referendum, how the question is asked can mean more than the question itself when people make up their minds on how to vote. - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 1:35 pm: Absolutely NOT….referendum form of gov’t is a terrible idea. I’m not agreeing with the idea of gambling expansion either but sometimes an elected official needs to do what they percieve to be right…….not what the polls say(aka “referendums”) - Mr. Cub - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 2:05 pm: A cage match between Blago and Quinn would be more interesting … and my money’s on the real Populist. - The Century Club - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 2:23 pm: There’s just not that much evidence that gaming is wildly controversial, so there’s no reason to believe that a State Rep/Senator would follow the results - or think that the results represent strongly held beliefs that will cost them at election time. When an issue is hot, a referendum can create a sense than an elected official is really going with/against the will of the people on an important issue. It’s like mass lobbying and it adds to (not detracts from) the accountability that some of the other posters want to see from their elected officials. - Napoleon has left the building - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 2:42 pm: Yes and no. I agree with the idea of a referendum, but perhaps for Chicago only. Why should the Mayor alone determine if Chicago residents and families should play host to a major casino for the next hundred years without a single public discussion on the idea. Illinois missed the boat on a referendum so to speak, we already have boats so what’s the point now? If Pat had any cajons he’s ask for a recall based on Blago lying to the voters. Maybe he can set a precedent by suing Blago for lying to him as a running-mate. - Chicago Guy - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 3:14 pm: God forbid that the people should have a say! Then what would Mike Madigan have to do? - Garp - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 3:42 pm: The present Illinois casino gambling locations only attract Illinoisans. How did we get so stupid? Quality casinos in Rosemont and Chicago would bring out of state and foreign money helping propel this states economy. Casinos along the borders of the state would attract out of state money from Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin. Why don’t we let conventioneers, tourists and out of state gamblers help our economy instead of problem gamblers and fixed income seniors. How can the politicos have screwed this up so bad? Indiana knows that if you build casinos near Chicago and the IL border and let people smoke they will make a ton of money. Why are we so dumb? The states lawmakers have demonstrated that they are the last people who should decide gambling. Thankfully, gambling is not one of my vices; but I have seen this addiction destroy families. Our state should not be in the business of ruining the lives of its citizens. We depend on race tracks, casinos and sin taxes because lawmakers don’t have the integrity to cut spending and raise legitimate taxes. Of course it is time for a referendum on a great many issues. - Angry Chicagoan - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 4:04 pm: Not too surprising; Quinn has always wanted to adopt the California state constitution, initiative referendum process and all, and he sees an opportunity for it here. My problem is that in general a voter-initiative process will make state government in general look more like the Blagojevich era rather than less. I think Pat Quinn still thinks it’s 1911 and you can break the power of machine bosses in this way without the downside of mass-media-driven fads. Unfortunately, in Illinois, while we never did get rid of our machine and that indeed constitutes unfinished business, we’ve long since gotten the same mass-media-driven politics as everyone else; it’s why Blago has survived this long, and it would corrupt the initiative process just as in California — not for nothing did an earlier poster warn that the initiative would have the same effect (pro casino) as our bought Legislature. So we need some other means of getting rid of the political hacks besides the initiative. - zatoichi - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 4:14 pm: Since the Boats exist the referendum on gambling is already done. As others have said if taxes can come from anyone but me, go for it. The issue coming from all this is would gambling really be profitable enough? While Detroit has not exactly set the world on fire, do other large gambling locations like Atlantic City actually provide their proposed tax targets for the state? From a business view point, are there studies indicating that Illinois can pull the body count needed to be successful? If it was here, I gotta think names of the Steve Wynn type developers would be popping up in the news. - Concerned Voter - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 4:16 pm: A big Yes to a referendum! Why? Because if they put a casino in Chicago, I know it will hurt the suburban boats. And being in a community that would be hurt by that I would vote a hearty NO! - Kid Vegas - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 4:18 pm: No, government by referendum is a cop out. Leaders should lead not be led. Lt Gov Quinn needs a new song in his hymnal. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 4:19 pm: Yes, I would support an advisory referendum. I think the voters are intelligent enough and should have the right to make decisions that affect them. Truth be told, I don’t consider pols who go against the interests of their constituents to be brave, I consider them to be ungrateful jerks. Now, sometimes they may make a decision that is not going against the long-term interests of their constituents but does go against the short-term interests and that is a different matter, I’m not sure gambling is one of those matters. I’m also not sure gambling is going to be defeated in a referendum. First of all, there are a lot more non-gambling addicts than there are gambling addicts. I, for instance, am not a gambling addict, I have probably wagered $20 in the past year. If, by supporting a gaming increase, my tax bill doesn’t increase and it would have otherwise, then why on earth wouldn’t I support an increase? I’m going to see a gain, and I suspect most IL citizens will see a gain from this, whether it ever actually materializes or not (and I have my doubts). - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 5:21 pm: An opinion poll accomplishes the same thing, and has just as much teeth as an “advisory” referendum. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 7:28 pm: It is too easy to have an advisory referendum on gambling and too hard to have a recall (binding) referendum. Something should be done to reverse that! Then we could do the prudent thing and nudge the Income and Sales Taxes just enough to solve the problem. Much less societal blood and guts that way! - Truth - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 8:51 pm: Let’s have an advisory referendum about whether we should have an advisory referendum on gambling. To Quinn - tell us what you believe is best for the state and then act on it. If we disagree, we shall let you know. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 8:57 pm: Pie in the sky. Gaming is not going to pull Illinois out of this slump. Estimated revenues are over inflated as always. Tell me why anyone would want to gamble in Illinois ? The smoking ban that becomes law in January is going to send all those drinking, smoking gamblers to Indiana and Wisconsin. Conventioneers will stay in Vegas with big name entertainment and legal hookers. You have cut off your nose to spite your face. Just wait and see how fast the current gambling revenues fall. - JakeCP - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:01 pm: S. Illinois made a point, I don’t think we are qualified either. However it would be rude if we didn’t so we might as well have one. The people participating in the referendum should know that their say probably won’t have too much of an effect on our currently elected officials. - Thunder 2 - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:15 pm: I think all the voters should have opinion expressed through the voting ballot. Do you want more casinos in Illinois and if so, where would you want the state profits to go to? A. Health Care B. Capital Development of new roads C. Public Education. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 11:41 pm: No. Government by referenda is a terrible precedent. That’s one of the reasons we have the form of government we do. The founding fathers understood that the swings of the public mood are not a sound basis for governing. Think about it. Would we have gone to war with Germany if WWII had depended on a referendum? Would we have abolished slavery? If so, would we have re-instituted it off and on in the past 140 years?. Would the 14th and 15th amendments been adopted? How about woment voting? We have representative government for a reason. Why would we have a general assembly and a governor if we wanted to govern by plebiscite? Who would decide what went to referendum? If we don’t trust the governor and legislators we elect, then we would either have to have a referendum on everything, or referenda on whether a subject should be put to referendum. Populist cop-out! - Come on - Wednesday, Dec 19, 07 @ 8:50 am: Mr. Quinn brought us increased power in the four tops, why should this be a surpise…Lets stop pandering and delays get something done. - RJW - Wednesday, Dec 19, 07 @ 9:02 am: Absolutely Not!! I think it is ridiculous people always say that the voters should be consulted before government can do anything. We live in a representative democracy. We elect people to make decisions. If we don’t like those decisions, we don’t vote for them the next time. If the voters had to be consulted every time a decision was made nothing would ever get done. If you don’t like our system of government, change it. Otherwise, let it work like it is supposed to. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.