What one political/legislative reform proposal would you like to see enacted this year? I’m not talking about a bill, here, I’m talking about one specific reform. Explain.
Implementation of a system of majority elections in Illinois, using either runoff elections or Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for single seat races.
It’s completely unacceptable that we use a plurality election system that allows candidates to be elected with less than 50% of the total vote in single seat races. Plurality elections allow candidates to win elections even when MOST people voted for someone else.
IRV is a proven system already used throughout the world. It has been shown to improve voter turnout, reduce negative campaigning, eliminate the so-called spoiler effect, and save taxpayer money (by completely eliminating the need for primary elections, if optionally desired.)
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:16 pm:
Eliminating an amendatory veto so that an executive won’t be allowed to rewrite legislation. An executive should be allowed to take out legislation that is for example unconstitutional. Yup no amendatory and keep the line-item veto!
Go back to the old process of JCAR - with the Governor (and agencies) taking everything to JCAR (stop the boycott!) and JCAR having the power to question and delay, but not block (stop the war!). Both sides are right now taking ridiculous black/white positions and the old process was an equitable balance between the power of the executive and the power of the legislative.
Have each legislative have a blog that covers what members are doing relevant to the committee. And the blog would allow comments and citizens to start discussions about ideas they think should be implemented.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:27 pm:
A more realistic budgeting format where the budget balance would include all those unpaid bills that are currently carried over without accounting for them as part of the new budget.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:34 pm:
Extend the right to vote to 17 year-olds who will be 18 by the time of the next General Election AND implement same-day voter registration using provisional ballots. If Wisconsin can do it, so can we.
strengthen IL Open Meetings Act & Freedom of Information Acts to allow citizens & press to recover reasonable costs when bringing actions to enforce compliance
I’d like to see actual campaign finance reform that is similar to the federal system. Limits on contributions from corporations, interest groups, PACs, and individuals would be good to see here.
This will be one step in taking the influence in government away from the powerful and giving it back to the people of the state.
Replace the current state funded pension plans with a defined contribution plan for new hires. Take the money saved by that action to properly fund the existing pension liabilitites.
Pat Collins idea on ending transfers between campaign committees is interesting, but I wonder if it would have the desired effect of lessening the power of leadership over legislators.
It seems to me that power comes from the ability to raise the money from the interests, not in the mechanism of transfer.
The ability to raise the money comes from control of what does and does not reach the floor. Another mechanism to distribute could be found; say letters to the interest suggesting they contribute X amount to X legislator by a certain date.
We already have open primaries. I have a B.A. in political science, from the University of Arkansas. While I was there, I learned that our country has three kinds of primaries, closed, open, and wide-open. If a state has closed primaries, each voter must declare a party when he or she registers to vote. During primaries, the voter may only receive a ballot of that party. If a state has open primaries, voters don’t declare a party when they register. During primaries, each voter may receive a republican ballot or a democrat ballot, whichever the voter chooses, for that election. If a state has wide-open primaries, each primary voter receives a ballot which has candidates of all parties. According to these definitions, Illinois has open primaries. When Anon said that he or she supports open primaries, he or she probably meant wide-open primaries.
The legislature should pass a bill which would state that the petition signature requirements would be the same numbers for all parties. About a year ago, one house passed this bill, but the other one didn’t pass it yet.
Pat Collins’ proposal sounds pretty interesting, though wordslinger’s criticism involving agreed schedules of contributions seems like a good one. Another approach might be to simply say: “if you can’t cast a ballot, you can’t make a contribution.” That would force corporations and unions to “bundle” their contributions through members and employees. It these organizations want voters to support candidate A, let them buy their own ads to transparently tell us so. I think that the case can be made that all corporate speech in commercial (not political) speech, and enjoys a lower standard of 1st amendment protection.
On the open primary: the proposal most frequently advanced in Illinois would simply eliminate the requirement that electors publicly declare which primary they’re voting in, but still limit them to voting in only 1 party’s primary.
My idea of an open primary is to be able to cross party lines and for only one candidate for a given office. For instance, I vote for a Dem for Governor, but maybe a Repub for my local Rep or Sen. One ballot, all the names, just like the “real” election.
Special elections to fill any vacancy in office. No more appointments to serve out terms. Also, relatives, married/blood could follow one another in the same office. We didn’t leave the British Empire just to have a form of hereditary light.
- Learning the Ropes - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 3:08 pm:
Colt and Pot already signed up for my idea. Computer drawn districts which maintained compactness, snapped to municipal lines when possible, and preserved previous boundaries as much as possible. Lets bring back competitive districts, also meaning that leaders couldn’t just dump disproportionate amounts of resources in a handful of battles… lessening their power. Down with Gerrymandering!
Wide open primaries, where you never have to declare your party affiliation, along with a law against asking people for anything that could be used as a surrogate party membership proof.
Order all state agencies to immediately comply with FOIA requests or be fined. Once a judge says its a go, let it GO.
No more sweeping special funds. Instead create MORE special funds so as many laws and regulations and services as possible are self-funding by those who use them. Save GRF for things that can’t be thus addressed. if a fund is getting too fat, (as determined by the auditor general), they must reduce fees and burn the fat, unless it is invested in something fund-related with a date-certain completion.
All Illinois election campaigns get free TV and radio time; every certified candidate or group the SBOE approves may have access to the same pool of advertising minutes among all stations in their respective regions. NO candidates can buy any time beyond the free time provided. Stations can choose where to put the free spots, but must run all the related candidate’s ads in the same block, in random order. Half the spots must run in prime time.
If we could de-couple fundraising for advertising from the election process, we’ve killed off most of the temptations of the current system.
Oh I was doing some research last night and found that in Chicago if an Alderman died, resigned or was lord forbid indicted or convicted the mayor wasn’t supposed to appoint a replacement. There must be a special election. Let’s bring that back no more mayoral appointees in Chicago!
If campaigns would receive free TV and radio commercials, how would the TV & radio stations be paid? Do you support increasing tax rates, to pay for the ads, or do you want the legislature to decrease spending, in another subject? I don’t want any of my tax money being given to any Democrats, and many Democrats don’t want their tax money given to Republicans.
End taxpayer funding for private elections (primaries). Either open all parties to all voters, or shut primaries down and have wide open general elections.
Videocameras on all polling places and central counting areas that are promptly posted online would help improve election integrity. Not enough resolution to see any actual votes, just ensure the process is proper and consistent.
So called “open” primaries would be a terrible idea. They would violate political parties’ right to freedom of association. A political party is a private, voluntary association; and a primary election is an internal process that some parties use to select their candidates. The state has no business forcing a political party to allow non-members to interfere in its candidate selection process. Only the party itself has the right to determine who gets to participate in that candidate selection process. If the public is unhappy with the candidates offered by the then existing political parties, the public is free to nominate an independent candidate to be placed on the general election ballot; or anyone is also free to start their own new political party.
- Just a student... - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:38 pm:
sockpuppet- I’ve always thought that the Comptroller’s office was the useless one. Takes no intellect whatsoever. At least the Treasurer’s office requires some sort of financial investment knowledge.
I’m for combining the offices, but let’s call it the Treasurer’s office, not the Comptroller’s office. Or maybe the Comptreasurer’s office.
Funny how we forget. Special elections were eliminated as part of a reform to consolidate elections to only a few times a year. This saved money - also prevented school districts and others from scheduling tax rate referenda on randomly selected dates. All elections are on a calendar of a few, identified dates. With that reform, the idea of calling a special election every time some office was vacant was considered wasteful (and letting vacancies sit unfilled waiting for the next identified election date was considered undemocratic, so many vacancy statutes were changed to refer to appointments, Chicago’s included. [Historical twist - one of the first thing the Vrdolyak 29 tried to do when Harold Washington was elected was to change the law back for Chicago, so the Mayor could NOT fill vacancies. Madigan blocked that, as part of his philosophy of keeping “Council Wars” out of Springfield.) Odd now that “reform” is considered going back to special elections. [The one exception is Congressional vacancies, which are controlled by federal laws.]
Restore public trust by ending judicial campaigns for election. Long-term judicial appointments would be an improvement. Lottery for all qualified applicants would be unbiased.
Why should the public’s tax dollars be spent to fund PRIVATE party candidate selection, especially when the majority of taxpayers do not want to be associated with either political party?
And you know the rules for signatures are very different (ie biased) depending on which PRIVATE party you affiliate with (or don’t).
The current system is mostly a self-perpetuating game of insiders, which probably explains why Illinois has such a well established reputation for corruption.
- If It Walks Like A Duck... - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 5:06 pm:
Anonymous wrote, “Why should the public’s tax dollars be spent to fund PRIVATE party candidate selection, especially when the majority of taxpayers do not want to be associated with either political party?”
The public’s tax dollars should NOT be spent to administer primary elections–an internal candidate selection process used by private, voluntary, membership organizations (i.e. political parties.) Let the parties work out for themselves exactly how they choose which candidates to endorse; and assuming that they have earned ballot access, have them simply certify their choices to the election authority for placement on the ballot. Anyone unhappy with how a party conducts its candidate selection process is free to join another party or start their own.
Oh, and voters need not be “affiliated” with a political party in order to vote in the PUBLIC election–the general/regular election. They need only be “affiliated” with a party in order to participate in that party’s candidate selection process–a primary. The public is free to both nominate and vote for independent candidates, without affiliating with any party.
I actually believe that a political party has a right to also allow/invite non-members to participate in its candidate selection process; however, the current statutory scheme actually PREVENTS a party from entering into this type of free and voluntary, mutual association.
Wait a minute Squideshi. Can you think of any other “private, voluntary association” whose “internal” electoral process is governed by statute and paid for by the State? I rather doubt it. I’m perfectly happy to continue to require only avowed party members to cast ballots in the “internal” elections of their party (and not both) but which party they choose is their affair alone. Let the party commisars get their precinct walk lists somewhere else. Let the patronage chiefs vet job applicants some other way. Let members of the press actually vote in these “internal” elections without fear of accusation later.
Afraid of crossovers polluting the “internal process” with votes for the candidate they most want to run against? Then why didn’t Republicans flock to Hillary in Wisconsin? It doesn’t happen; it’s not an issue.
For those who don’t want the state to operate the primary elections, which of the alternatives do you want? I’m from a caucus state and think they work just fine for selecting delegates for the national convention – but people who aren’t familiar with them seem to think they are confusing or worse.
The other choice is to have the political party committee people pick the delegates the way they fill open seats in the legislature. (Except it is not clear how the party committee people would ever be chosen since it could not be by an election. Perhaps you will let us do it at the general election in November.)
Outlaw nepotism - no relatives closer than a cousin working for any part of any public officials office. There are more than enough “qualified” people to fill those jobs without going to wives, sons, daughters, etc.
The reform I would like to see is eliminating the ability of the leader in each chamber to keep a bill from reaching the floor of that chamber. If a bill is passed in one chamber it should be heard and voted on in the other chamber irregardless of the personal feelings of the leader of that chamber. The current practice gives too much power to two individuals, and that is not true democracy. If each area is to be represented by their elected legislators and by that representation have some voice in the process; that voice should not be quashed by one or two individuals that do not answer to 98% of the State.
- Pat collins - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:05 pm:
No campaign fund may move money to any other campaign fund.
- Pat collins - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:06 pm:
The idea is to break the power of Madigan/Jones and liberate the legislators.
Not that many want it….
- Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:10 pm:
Pat - good one. I was going to say something about campaign finance - but what you’ve suggested is perfect.
- Squideshi - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:12 pm:
Implementation of a system of majority elections in Illinois, using either runoff elections or Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for single seat races.
It’s completely unacceptable that we use a plurality election system that allows candidates to be elected with less than 50% of the total vote in single seat races. Plurality elections allow candidates to win elections even when MOST people voted for someone else.
IRV is a proven system already used throughout the world. It has been shown to improve voter turnout, reduce negative campaigning, eliminate the so-called spoiler effect, and save taxpayer money (by completely eliminating the need for primary elections, if optionally desired.)
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:16 pm:
Eliminate the line item veto.
- Levois - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:18 pm:
Eliminating an amendatory veto so that an executive won’t be allowed to rewrite legislation. An executive should be allowed to take out legislation that is for example unconstitutional. Yup no amendatory and keep the line-item veto!
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:25 pm:
Go back to the old process of JCAR - with the Governor (and agencies) taking everything to JCAR (stop the boycott!) and JCAR having the power to question and delay, but not block (stop the war!). Both sides are right now taking ridiculous black/white positions and the old process was an equitable balance between the power of the executive and the power of the legislative.
- Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:26 pm:
Have each legislative have a blog that covers what members are doing relevant to the committee. And the blog would allow comments and citizens to start discussions about ideas they think should be implemented.
- Sweet Jane - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:26 pm:
Health care for everybody.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:27 pm:
A more realistic budgeting format where the budget balance would include all those unpaid bills that are currently carried over without accounting for them as part of the new budget.
- Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:27 pm:
each legislative committee
- Lefty Lefty - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:28 pm:
I was going to suggest term limits to get rid of the power brokers, but Pat Collins’ idea wouldn’t punish the good reps. I third the motion.
- Levois - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:31 pm:
Oh and recall in addition to a return to proportional representation in the state House of Representatives.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:33 pm:
House Bill 1
Con-Con
Term limits for leadership positions
No amendatory vetos
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:34 pm:
Extend the right to vote to 17 year-olds who will be 18 by the time of the next General Election AND implement same-day voter registration using provisional ballots. If Wisconsin can do it, so can we.
- BannedForLife - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:38 pm:
strengthen IL Open Meetings Act & Freedom of Information Acts to allow citizens & press to recover reasonable costs when bringing actions to enforce compliance
- Anon - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:42 pm:
Open Primaries - Enough said!
- fedup dem - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:42 pm:
Moving our Primary election to the first Tuesday in May (the same date as Indiana’s).
- SpfldDemocrat - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:45 pm:
I’d like to see actual campaign finance reform that is similar to the federal system. Limits on contributions from corporations, interest groups, PACs, and individuals would be good to see here.
This will be one step in taking the influence in government away from the powerful and giving it back to the people of the state.
- sine die - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:47 pm:
Replace the current state funded pension plans with a defined contribution plan for new hires. Take the money saved by that action to properly fund the existing pension liabilitites.
- Sock Puppet Express - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 1:41 pm:
How about unicameral legislature? Let’s guess which chamber would win
- wordslinger - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 1:44 pm:
Pat Collins idea on ending transfers between campaign committees is interesting, but I wonder if it would have the desired effect of lessening the power of leadership over legislators.
It seems to me that power comes from the ability to raise the money from the interests, not in the mechanism of transfer.
The ability to raise the money comes from control of what does and does not reach the floor. Another mechanism to distribute could be found; say letters to the interest suggesting they contribute X amount to X legislator by a certain date.
- colt 45 - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 1:45 pm:
remove the redistricting process from the hands of the legislature
- anon - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 1:50 pm:
open primaries, absolutely.
- Anon & confused - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 2:12 pm:
To the Anons who want an Open Primary — Please explain. Do you want to vote for both all parties on one ballot?
- VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 2:24 pm:
An elimination of the Comptroller’s Office and merging it with the Treasurer’s Office. Both parties are on record in supporting this.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 2:27 pm:
I might take my first proposal back and go with colt 45. A non-partisan, computer-based redistricting package would be great.
I would have the program written to keep the districts as compact as possible and to follow municipal & county lines as much as possible.
- PhilCollins - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 2:31 pm:
We already have open primaries. I have a B.A. in political science, from the University of Arkansas. While I was there, I learned that our country has three kinds of primaries, closed, open, and wide-open. If a state has closed primaries, each voter must declare a party when he or she registers to vote. During primaries, the voter may only receive a ballot of that party. If a state has open primaries, voters don’t declare a party when they register. During primaries, each voter may receive a republican ballot or a democrat ballot, whichever the voter chooses, for that election. If a state has wide-open primaries, each primary voter receives a ballot which has candidates of all parties. According to these definitions, Illinois has open primaries. When Anon said that he or she supports open primaries, he or she probably meant wide-open primaries.
The legislature should pass a bill which would state that the petition signature requirements would be the same numbers for all parties. About a year ago, one house passed this bill, but the other one didn’t pass it yet.
- so-called "Austin Mayor" - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 2:32 pm:
“What one political/legislative reform proposal would you like to see enacted this year?”
Does a Blago indictment count or am I violating the spirit of the QOTD?
– SCAM
- David Starrett - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 2:59 pm:
Pat Collins’ proposal sounds pretty interesting, though wordslinger’s criticism involving agreed schedules of contributions seems like a good one. Another approach might be to simply say: “if you can’t cast a ballot, you can’t make a contribution.” That would force corporations and unions to “bundle” their contributions through members and employees. It these organizations want voters to support candidate A, let them buy their own ads to transparently tell us so. I think that the case can be made that all corporate speech in commercial (not political) speech, and enjoys a lower standard of 1st amendment protection.
On the open primary: the proposal most frequently advanced in Illinois would simply eliminate the requirement that electors publicly declare which primary they’re voting in, but still limit them to voting in only 1 party’s primary.
- anon - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 3:08 pm:
My idea of an open primary is to be able to cross party lines and for only one candidate for a given office. For instance, I vote for a Dem for Governor, but maybe a Repub for my local Rep or Sen. One ballot, all the names, just like the “real” election.
- Poli-Sci Geek - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 3:08 pm:
Special elections to fill any vacancy in office. No more appointments to serve out terms. Also, relatives, married/blood could follow one another in the same office. We didn’t leave the British Empire just to have a form of hereditary light.
- Learning the Ropes - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 3:08 pm:
Colt and Pot already signed up for my idea. Computer drawn districts which maintained compactness, snapped to municipal lines when possible, and preserved previous boundaries as much as possible. Lets bring back competitive districts, also meaning that leaders couldn’t just dump disproportionate amounts of resources in a handful of battles… lessening their power. Down with Gerrymandering!
- Bud Man - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 3:10 pm:
Pay-to-Play Reform (HB0004)
When are Emil and Blago going to develop a conscience?
- Poli-Sci Geek - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 3:12 pm:
Sorry could NOT follow another in office.
- Sock Puppet Express - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 3:45 pm:
Since the treasurer is really a glorified drive up deposit window merge it with Comptroller and save a lot of coin.
- GS - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:02 pm:
Wide open primaries, where you never have to declare your party affiliation, along with a law against asking people for anything that could be used as a surrogate party membership proof.
Order all state agencies to immediately comply with FOIA requests or be fined. Once a judge says its a go, let it GO.
No more sweeping special funds. Instead create MORE special funds so as many laws and regulations and services as possible are self-funding by those who use them. Save GRF for things that can’t be thus addressed. if a fund is getting too fat, (as determined by the auditor general), they must reduce fees and burn the fat, unless it is invested in something fund-related with a date-certain completion.
All Illinois election campaigns get free TV and radio time; every certified candidate or group the SBOE approves may have access to the same pool of advertising minutes among all stations in their respective regions. NO candidates can buy any time beyond the free time provided. Stations can choose where to put the free spots, but must run all the related candidate’s ads in the same block, in random order. Half the spots must run in prime time.
If we could de-couple fundraising for advertising from the election process, we’ve killed off most of the temptations of the current system.
- Levois - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:13 pm:
Oh I was doing some research last night and found that in Chicago if an Alderman died, resigned or was lord forbid indicted or convicted the mayor wasn’t supposed to appoint a replacement. There must be a special election. Let’s bring that back no more mayoral appointees in Chicago!
- PhilCollins - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:22 pm:
If campaigns would receive free TV and radio commercials, how would the TV & radio stations be paid? Do you support increasing tax rates, to pay for the ads, or do you want the legislature to decrease spending, in another subject? I don’t want any of my tax money being given to any Democrats, and many Democrats don’t want their tax money given to Republicans.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:24 pm:
End taxpayer funding for private elections (primaries). Either open all parties to all voters, or shut primaries down and have wide open general elections.
Videocameras on all polling places and central counting areas that are promptly posted online would help improve election integrity. Not enough resolution to see any actual votes, just ensure the process is proper and consistent.
- Squideshi - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:29 pm:
So called “open” primaries would be a terrible idea. They would violate political parties’ right to freedom of association. A political party is a private, voluntary association; and a primary election is an internal process that some parties use to select their candidates. The state has no business forcing a political party to allow non-members to interfere in its candidate selection process. Only the party itself has the right to determine who gets to participate in that candidate selection process. If the public is unhappy with the candidates offered by the then existing political parties, the public is free to nominate an independent candidate to be placed on the general election ballot; or anyone is also free to start their own new political party.
- Just a student... - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:38 pm:
sockpuppet- I’ve always thought that the Comptroller’s office was the useless one. Takes no intellect whatsoever. At least the Treasurer’s office requires some sort of financial investment knowledge.
I’m for combining the offices, but let’s call it the Treasurer’s office, not the Comptroller’s office. Or maybe the Comptreasurer’s office.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:42 pm:
Funny how we forget. Special elections were eliminated as part of a reform to consolidate elections to only a few times a year. This saved money - also prevented school districts and others from scheduling tax rate referenda on randomly selected dates. All elections are on a calendar of a few, identified dates. With that reform, the idea of calling a special election every time some office was vacant was considered wasteful (and letting vacancies sit unfilled waiting for the next identified election date was considered undemocratic, so many vacancy statutes were changed to refer to appointments, Chicago’s included. [Historical twist - one of the first thing the Vrdolyak 29 tried to do when Harold Washington was elected was to change the law back for Chicago, so the Mayor could NOT fill vacancies. Madigan blocked that, as part of his philosophy of keeping “Council Wars” out of Springfield.) Odd now that “reform” is considered going back to special elections. [The one exception is Congressional vacancies, which are controlled by federal laws.]
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 4:49 pm:
Restore public trust by ending judicial campaigns for election. Long-term judicial appointments would be an improvement. Lottery for all qualified applicants would be unbiased.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 5:01 pm:
Squideshi,
Why should the public’s tax dollars be spent to fund PRIVATE party candidate selection, especially when the majority of taxpayers do not want to be associated with either political party?
And you know the rules for signatures are very different (ie biased) depending on which PRIVATE party you affiliate with (or don’t).
The current system is mostly a self-perpetuating game of insiders, which probably explains why Illinois has such a well established reputation for corruption.
- If It Walks Like A Duck... - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 5:06 pm:
Gubernatorial recall. Con-Con you hear me?
- Squideshi - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 5:17 pm:
Anonymous wrote, “Why should the public’s tax dollars be spent to fund PRIVATE party candidate selection, especially when the majority of taxpayers do not want to be associated with either political party?”
The public’s tax dollars should NOT be spent to administer primary elections–an internal candidate selection process used by private, voluntary, membership organizations (i.e. political parties.) Let the parties work out for themselves exactly how they choose which candidates to endorse; and assuming that they have earned ballot access, have them simply certify their choices to the election authority for placement on the ballot. Anyone unhappy with how a party conducts its candidate selection process is free to join another party or start their own.
- Squideshi - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 5:22 pm:
Oh, and voters need not be “affiliated” with a political party in order to vote in the PUBLIC election–the general/regular election. They need only be “affiliated” with a party in order to participate in that party’s candidate selection process–a primary. The public is free to both nominate and vote for independent candidates, without affiliating with any party.
I actually believe that a political party has a right to also allow/invite non-members to participate in its candidate selection process; however, the current statutory scheme actually PREVENTS a party from entering into this type of free and voluntary, mutual association.
- David Starrett - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 5:40 pm:
Wait a minute Squideshi. Can you think of any other “private, voluntary association” whose “internal” electoral process is governed by statute and paid for by the State? I rather doubt it. I’m perfectly happy to continue to require only avowed party members to cast ballots in the “internal” elections of their party (and not both) but which party they choose is their affair alone. Let the party commisars get their precinct walk lists somewhere else. Let the patronage chiefs vet job applicants some other way. Let members of the press actually vote in these “internal” elections without fear of accusation later.
Afraid of crossovers polluting the “internal process” with votes for the candidate they most want to run against? Then why didn’t Republicans flock to Hillary in Wisconsin? It doesn’t happen; it’s not an issue.
- David Starrett - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 5:43 pm:
Squideshi: at least you’re consistent. Cheers.
- Anon & amused - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 5:45 pm:
[Since the discussion is off topic:]
For those who don’t want the state to operate the primary elections, which of the alternatives do you want? I’m from a caucus state and think they work just fine for selecting delegates for the national convention – but people who aren’t familiar with them seem to think they are confusing or worse.
The other choice is to have the political party committee people pick the delegates the way they fill open seats in the legislature. (Except it is not clear how the party committee people would ever be chosen since it could not be by an election. Perhaps you will let us do it at the general election in November.)
- Frustrated Republican - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 7:36 pm:
Outlaw nepotism - no relatives closer than a cousin working for any part of any public officials office. There are more than enough “qualified” people to fill those jobs without going to wives, sons, daughters, etc.
- Hickory - Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 9:34 pm:
All liabilities of the State must be paid within 45 days or the vendor gets 10% interest per month.
- rockstar - Sunday, Feb 24, 08 @ 4:37 pm:
Educator Misconduct - www.hiddenviolations.com
- Irish - Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 9:39 am:
The reform I would like to see is eliminating the ability of the leader in each chamber to keep a bill from reaching the floor of that chamber. If a bill is passed in one chamber it should be heard and voted on in the other chamber irregardless of the personal feelings of the leader of that chamber. The current practice gives too much power to two individuals, and that is not true democracy. If each area is to be represented by their elected legislators and by that representation have some voice in the process; that voice should not be quashed by one or two individuals that do not answer to 98% of the State.