The pricetag and our state’s failed politics appear to be the two biggest arguments against holding a constitutional convention.
Every 20 years, Illinois voters are given the right to call a constitutional convention. I want you to vote “Yes,” but various interest groups are spending millions to convince you to vote “No.”
The “Vote No” ads claim the projected cost of holding a convention is too high, especially considering that the state is running a horrific budget deficit.
They aren’t telling you something.
1) The state constitution itself is partially responsible for our current budget problems because glaring loopholes allow politicians to ignore balanced budget “requirements.”
2) Most of the interest groups opposing a constitutional convention are themselves responsible for our budget situation. They’ve pushed countless tax breaks and spending increases. And now they’re using the very budget problems they helped create to argue against a solution. Ironic, eh?
My opinion is we can’t afford not to call a convention.
Another argument against a constitutional convention is: “The same politicians who got us into this mess will be the ones controlling a convention.”
I wouldn’t be too sure of that.
Right now, both political parties in the Illinois House are stretching themselves to the limit over eight House campaigns. They’ve dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into those races and are struggling to find the money from interest groups to continue the pace.
So, if the powers that be are straining to control the outcome of eight races, how can they control a process that will elect 118 constitutional convention delegates at once?
Legislators will be allowed to run for delegate, but they can’t be paid for both jobs at the same time, which will likely discourage most of them from seeking the position.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich is so horribly unpopular now that he’s the political kiss of death. If he lends support to delegate candidates, they will almost surely lose.
Delegates won’t be running for reelection, so they will be far less beholden to any assistance they do receive from interest groups than state legislators, who must run again every two to four years.
The Chicago machine will certainly become involved, but recent prison terms for Daley’s former patronage chieftains have hobbled the organization. Besides, the machine elected delegates to the last convention 38 years ago (at the height of the organization’s power and strength), but the hacks failed to exert much influence because they simply didn’t care enough about policy. That hasn’t changed.
The machine’s biggest loss back then was a provision which moved the statewide elections to the “off” years. Illinois used to elect its governor the same year it voted for president. The first Mayor Daley was horrified at the move, telling a young delegate, Michael J. Madigan, that the change would mean no Democrat would be elected governor for the next 30 years. After the change took effect, no Democrat was elected governor until 2002. Daley’s prediction was right on the money.
Constitutional convention delegate campaigns have historically attracted large numbers of young, smart, issue-oriented candidates, not just in Illinois but all over the country. Also, never forget that voters get the final say on the convention’s finished product via referendum.
“But what about the stupidity of Illinois voters?” some ask, pointing to Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger as examples of the danger of putting such an important decision into the hands of clueless voters.
If Rod and Todd were wildly popular today I would agree with that analysis. Instead, they are two of the most despised politicians in all of Illinois history. The overwhelming majority of voters clearly regret those decisions, and I think they’ve learned from their mistakes.
If you want to stop state politicians from running multi billion-dollar deficits, then vote to spend a relatively paltry sum to hold a constitutional convention.
If you are afraid of the voters, well, you might as well just move somewhere else because you’ll be stuck with their choices for legislators and statewide officials for the rest of your life.
If you don’t want any change, then vote “No.”
I can’t promise you massive amounts of change if we do get a constitutional convention. I can promise, however, that nothing will change if you vote “No.”
Please, vote “Yes.”
There they stood, like an old Archie and Edith. Gov. Jim Edgar and his 1992 gubernatorial opponent, Dawn Clark Netsch, side by side in the Thompson Center press room last week to unite behind a cause. They want you to vote “no” to a constitutional convention on your Nov. 4 ballot.
Frankly, I was insulted.
Their bottom line, along with all the special interest groups weaving fear into their messaging, is this: Anything you want to change about Illinois government - the players, the stalemate, the governor himself - can and should be done through the legislative process. The problem is not the constitution. It’s the people we send to Springfield. If we did a better job vetting them, we wouldn’t be stuck in this mess.
I disagree. I am voting for a convention for two very specific reasons: Article IV, Section 3, Legislative Redistricting, and Article X, Section 1, Education.
- Rep. John Fritchey - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:47 am:
Nice column Rich.
- Leroy - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:47 am:
How much money is a con-con going to cost me as a taxpayer over the next 20 years?
If you can’t answer that question, you are not getting my support.
It would be like agreeing to by a car from a dealership, with the salesman saying “Sign on the dotted line, we’ll work out the price details later”.
Would you agree to that? Would you trust the salesman?
- The Doc - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:50 am:
Sal, apparently you’d rather the status quo remain and continue to trust the inmates currently running the asylum in Springfield, yes? Explain to me who these supposed “folks” without a clue are, and how they could cause any more damage than the current crop of miscreants.
- Vote Quimby! - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:51 am:
TRS sent out a ’special edition’ fall newsletter for three issues: falling investment values (through Sept. 30–it was printed before the October meltdown); an election for TRS board officers (in May–hardly reason enough for a special issue) and, on the front page, reasons why TRS people should vote no for a con-con.
The reasons were simple: evil delegates will steal your pension. It also stated if a con-con passes it would give legislators a pass on important issues until 2010. So, conversely, if a con-con fails all the legislators will suddenly unite and address all these major issues next year? OK…I buy that.
==My generation, apparently, is too obtuse== Yup, we’re just too stupid, Vern…
- John Bambenek - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:54 am:
A con-con won’t cost you anything over the next 20 years. What may cost you is who you decide to send as a delegate. And before you are on the hook for something for the next 20 years, you get to vote on anything (even punctuation) that is changed.
This vote only decides whether citizens can have a say in their constitution and possibly make changes. Voting no leaves it up to Rod and the tops to decide what gets changed in our constitution.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:57 am:
Redistricting is the main reason I’m for it, plus amendatory veto reform. I haven’t seen an education funding amendment out there.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:58 am:
Fun fact about that TRS newsletter (and their membership in the Alliance to Protect Rod and Todd)…
It violates the state ethics law… Quite flagrantly at that.
- You Go Boy - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:58 am:
Re: “can’t afford NOT to have a Con-Con…” - when I hear the same arguement, usually from an insurance salesman, I start mentally packing up and getting ready to leave. The fact is IF we DID have responsible/sane “leaders” and legislators, this “Con-Con” con wouldn’t even be debatably close. Pay millions in the HOPE all will be well. Having little trust in “Reform” or
“Reformers” is not a sign of anything but common sense. Mike Royko had it right about “Reformers”…..”RUN!!!!”.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:59 am:
===How much money is a con-con going to cost me as a taxpayer over the next 20 years?===
No offense, but how in the heck is anyone supposed to answer that question.
Answer me this: How much will it cost the state over 20 years if we don’t pass a con-con referendum next week?
If you can’t answer that question with extreme precision, I will vote yes.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:02 am:
There you go again, John. You really need your own personal truth squad. Rod doesn’t have anything to do with what gets changed in our constitution.
and there is no “Rod and Todd alliance” regarding the ConCon.
- Princess - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:03 am:
I did not get corrective notice on the con-con issue when I voted a week ago in Peoria County. I looked for it, was not handed out, laying on the able, nor posted on a near by wall. While it did not matter to me as I was aware of the issue, I was disappointed not to see it available to those who were suppose to have informed of the issue. It may have been available in other sections of Peoria Co and just overlooked at where I voted, that I can not say, I don’t know. The place I did vote at made a big deal about id’s though, studied the photo, studied your face and signatures, it was slightly intimidating in feel, but still no big deal–I am who I am and have no problem having to prove it.
- Leroy - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:05 am:
And the party in power, which would have complete control over the redistricting process next time around, would be for meaningful redistricting reform why?
Illinois has a $52 billion dollar budget. People have spent their whole lives fighting tooth and nail to control parts of it. They are going to give up all the political power and their livelihoods out of the goodness of the heart?
If you think the full court press by the powers that be is on now to vote ‘NO’, just wait until they must pull all the stops out to control the con-con in the event it gets approved.
Or, allow me to be frank: how much money is worth investing in order to get control over $52 billion?
(Hint: its probably in the high tens of millions, if not more)
- Levois - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:15 am:
I think I can understand the Elder Mayor Daley’s stance on changing the gubernatorial election year. It’s certainly because he wants to follow the coattails of any Democratic presidential candidate. At the same time how is changing the Gubernatorial election year a matter of policy?
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:21 am:
If the powers that be were truly concerned that a “yes” vote on con-con were imminent, they would be tossing out actual proposals to fix the worst problems by legislation and amendment, as well as funding their extensive “no to con-con” campaign.
My guess is that they’re not really worried at this point.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:21 am:
Bill-
Actually apparently I DO have a truth squad (google it).
To be fair, Rod can’t directly change anything but the ILGA sure can. And it certanly is Rob that has been illuminative in all the is wrong with our current constitution. Constitutions should limit the powers of bad leaders, that’s why we have them. The “we just need better leaders argument” is like rolling up in the colonies in 1776 and saying “its not the monarchy we just need a better monarch!”.
The biggest beneficiaries of the status quo are Rod and Todd. The alliance members have spent millions enabling these buffoons. No voter is going to elect a delegate that is going to help protect those two… People will vote yes for reform, they will not vote yes so the special interests can get more power.
So you’ll pardon me if I don’t take your “the voters are too stupid to be truested with the vote” argument seriously because when you boil it all down that is exactly what you are arguing.
- Snidely Whiplash - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:34 am:
===A con-con won’t cost you anything over the next 20 years. What may cost you is who you decide to send as a delegate. And before you are on the hook for something for the next 20 years, you get to vote on anything (even punctuation) that is changed.====
If I understood the question right, it was to be read: “How much will the convention and implementation of a new constitution cost?”
“It won’t cost you anything” hardly applies to either interpretation of the question. Estimates floating around are at $80M just to hold the convention, but I’m sure that’s on the high side. It will in any case be in the 10’s of millions, and could result in much more depending on what would be called for in the resulting document.
And, I have a question for Rich: Just how would you propose to draft a constitution that has ZERO loopholes? I would submit to you that it is impossible. No one can predict every possible maneuver against every single provision and provide a remedy for it in the document. Even if you could, the result would be a hopeless monstrosity of thousands of pages.
Constitutions, in the American context, are meant to be a compilation of guiding principles, with the specifics to be ironed out by legislatures and courts. You seem to be setting forth an argument that Illinois toss out its common law system and replace it with something similar to the Western European legal system, the Napoleanic Code, etc.
We all know that’s not going to happen. It is more realistic (and cheaper and less risky) to mount a campaign to elect independent legislators who will abide by the current constitution and work to enact amendments for recall, redistricting and an enforcable balanced budget.
Just my own opinion, of course.
- Truth - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:35 am:
There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, but Kristen: don’t overestimate the intelligence of an electorate that provided a majority vote for criminals in the last three elections for Illinois governor. We are what we are.
- Wumpus - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:36 am:
The districts cannot get much worse in their layout. I am weary of giving th epeople in power now (both parties) a chance to protect themselves. They will control the delegation and look out for themselves. In a perfect world, I could support this, but as things stand now, i am fearful. I simply don’t trust politicians. The people with the most supporters, Daley, Blago, Madigan, Jones, etc, the establishment will get the delegates and hence, control the con-con
- Snidely Whiplash - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:37 am:
===The biggest beneficiaries of the status quo are Rod and Todd. The alliance members have spent millions enabling these buffoons. No voter is going to elect a delegate that is going to help protect those two… People will vote yes for reform, they will not vote yes so the special interests can get more power.===
Not to burst your bubble, but let’s not forget they they reelected Rod once already, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knew what was coming with Todd. And you can bet that Todd and his allies will manage to get several of their supporters elected as delegates; they just won’t campaign by advertising their actual agenda.
I think that a lot of the pro con-con arguments are very naive. Well intentioned, but naive.
- shore - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:39 am:
Rich it was a well written and passionate column, but I continue to fail to see how adding one more mess to springfield will help clean it up. I think the best way for voters to handle springfield is to start getting rid of the people we send down there. More acrimony doesn’t seem to be an answer.
- Illinois Boy - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:42 am:
Seeing that I plan to retire from the state at the end of this year, with 35 years of service, what recourse do I have should the con-con rewrite the pension coverages to the point that I lose a portion of my monthly retirement? NONE!!! I and several thousand other employees and teachers are screwed!! I agree with your article for all the reasons we should vote yes but my retirement is too valuable to gamble with. Besides I don’t see anything changing the corruption presently running rampant in this state…….
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 11:00 am:
===Seeing that I plan to retire from the state at the end of this year, with 35 years of service===
Under the US constitution, those pension benefits already earned would not be touched.
Relax and check the facts before hyperventilating here, please. There’s almost nothing worse in comments than ill-informed and ill-tempered state workers/retirees.
- Captain Flume - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 11:01 am:
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 9:57 am:
Redistricting is the main reason I’m for it, plus amendatory veto reform. I haven’t seen an education funding amendment out there.==
Constitutional amendments for both amendatory veto limitations and education funding reform have been both rejected by the voters– AV in 1974 and Ed funding in 1992. The Dems did not have total control then. But they do now, and will likely have both the state and the nation in January.
We should have a constituional convention, but I am not optimistic we’ll get better than we have now, or maybe I’ll change my name to Pollyanna.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 12:12 pm:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have a pest control problem. For almost ten years we have watched vermin eat up our State. While mice are cute and little, they breed filth and when you end up with hundreds, they destroy everything you have and have invested.
Now, when the constitution was written, the writers gave us some pest control. We are allowed to use it every 20 years. Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to put new cheese in those old rat traps. The time has come to put out the roach motels. The time has come to curb the little fellas and set things right.
Now, some voters want you to believe that pests are not really pests. Or that putting our rat traps and roach motels won’t help when the infestation is as bad as what we’re experiencing today. TV ads are running that claim that all we need is a little dusting and a little sweeping, but if you take a closer look at who is making these claims, you will uncover Godzilla-sized rats salivating over the opportunity to continue feasting on your wages.
By voting “yes” we will start the process. We don’t have to accept the pest control team’s solutions if we don’t like them. But first, admit we have the problem and that each of us needs to be part of the solution.
Honestly, the rat problem we have can’t be worse!
- 2for2 - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 12:29 pm:
Rich,
I had an interesting conversation with a couple people this weekend who voted early. I asked them how they voted on con con. They both said they voted against it and for the same reason… because they voted in favor of the recall idea that is on the ballot. I’m wondering if others are picking up on this confusion. I think the recall question is only in Cook, correct? And, obviously it is non-binding. It will be interesting to see if this ends up tanking con-con at the end of the day or if this was just a strange coincidence.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 12:43 pm:
Oh, please, VanMan!There is absolutely no reason to think that a ConCon will have any effect on whatever you perceive to be wrong with state government. It will just be more of the same old, same old. The amendatory veto process, if abused, can be contested in court or overridden by either chamber. The governor’s term is 4 years, not 40, and to subject him (or presidents of county boards for that matter) to an expensive recall process is a ridiculous waste of resources when the people get to vote him up or down after a relatively short term.
As far as your “Godzilla rat” problem is concerned, you take a much bigger chance that feasting on your wages will happen after a concon than without one.
To use Rod and Todd or corruption as an argument is both specious and disingenuous if not an outright lie. Miller may be misguided in his pro-concon advocacy but at least he is honest. You and Bambanek should follow his example.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 12:55 pm:
I have never implied that the voters of this state are stupid, misinformed or any of the other derogatory things I read on this blog. There are a lot of election results that don’t go the way I would like but I trust the voters and have confidence in them. That is why I am confident that the voters will find that concon is a waste of time and valuable assets at a time when we can least afford it. The downside far outweighs the upside if there is any. We need to get down to business and solve the serious problems of this state now. We cannot afford to waste 3 or 4 years arguing about planks that will never pass anyway. We already have a great Constitution. Let’s use it the way it was intended. VOTE NO!
- Kevin Fanning - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 1:08 pm:
Bill,
If the Con-Con costs around $17 million, which was the estimate of a neutral organization, not the APIC, then it would be about a dollar for every citizen across the state. I’m willing to spend what a pack of gum costs to clean up the mess in Springfield, and I don’t want to wait another 20 years for that chance.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 3:07 pm:
Kevin,
neutral organization? Like who?
It will cost $17 million just for the GA to arrive at some sort of consensus on the rules.
- Kevin Fanning - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 3:09 pm:
====But the Illinois Legislative Research Unit, basing its figures on the cost of the 1970 con con, says the cost would be between $14 and $23 million.====
http://news-gazette.com/news/opinions/editorials/2008/10/24/vote_yes_on_illinois_constitutional
Sounds a lot more neutral to me than the APIC….
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 3:15 pm:
==I have never implied that the voters of this state are stupid, misinformed or any of the other derogatory things I read on this blog. - Bill ==
Bill is right. I don’t recall any of his posts that claim that ignorance or mass stupidity is a problem. I also don’t recall him ever claiming that Joe Q. Public needed education.
It is too easy to blame voters for an election result you politically disagree with. Voters are not stupid. There are too many of us, we have 230 years of proof otherwise.
If the Con-Con passes, then it is the right thing to do. If it does not, then it wasn’t. You have to believe in Democracy in order to have any discussions on public issues, or you are wasting everyone’s time.
We all get to play, but we all have to agree with the rules.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 3:22 pm:
Now, back to business…
==There is absolutely no reason to think that a ConCon will have any effect on whatever you perceive to be wrong with state government. - Bill ==
You are speaking for yourself there, Bill. There are plenty of reasons. Just because they do not tip you towards supporting a convention, doesn’t mean there are no reasons. And, not only are there reasons, there are great reasons to support a constitution.
==It will just be more of the same old, same old.==
Really? Why would that be? If you cannot foresee a brighter future for Illinois than the one we have, then perhaps there is reason for your pessimistic forecast. We both admitted to believing in democracy. Which state convention held over the past decades throughout the US resulted in a worse constitution? How could it be the same old, same old, when voters are directly involved in the process, and decide if the process is accepted? You can’t believe what you wrote, can you?
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 3:40 pm:
==To use Rod and Todd or corruption as an argument is both specious and disingenuous if not an outright lie. - Bill ==
If you are somehow claiming that I am using Rod or Todd as a reason for a constitutional convention, you are incorrect. If you are somehow claiming that I am using corruption as a reason for a constitutional convention, you are absolutely correct.
Since when have we enjoyed ethical government? What makes you so satisfied with government in this state that you would somehow defend them by saying corruption is not an issue facing Illinoians?
It is not a lie to state that Illinois is rife with corruption. It is not a stretch to imagine using a constitutional convention to address corruption issues we currently fail to address. It is not too much to ask that we empower ourselves as has been designated by our current “excellent” constitution, as you call it, to reform and rebuilt our state.
While you claim to defend voters, which I concur you have, you do seem to have a very low esteem regarding self-rule. Perhaps you believe that voters are little more than window dressing for your socialist stage plays passing for government policies? It seems you are willing to accept voter’s decisions, yet do not trust them. Right?
- The Doc - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 4:07 pm:
===If the Con-Con passes, then it is the right thing to do. If it does not, then it wasn’t. ====
You had me nodding in my office until the above. There’s been a cascade of misinformation promulgated by the antis, to the point where it appears many state workers are convinced a con-con will guarantee their pension is dissolved, amongst others. Only in a state begging for change (figuratively and literally) would such otherwise strange bedfellows come to a consensus on this issue.
Just sayin’.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 4:39 pm:
After early voting, all I can say on the con-con question is that we need a judge to order a whole new election with the proper wording placed on the ballot.
I knew what I was voting for with the flyer language vs. ballot language. It was pretty clear that the rest of the early voters in the group I was with barely looked at the flyer or understood the impact of it.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 5:22 pm:
VanMan,
I was referring to Bambenek who tries to use the “Rod and Todd Alliance” to somehow justify Con Con. I’m still not sure how you think that a ConCon will somehow end corruption. Do we really need a constitutional article or amendment that makes corruption illegal? There are already many laws on the books that make most kinds of corruption illegal. I’m not sure what you expect a new constitution to do about it and I have yet, with the notable exception of Mr. Miller, heard any reason to vote for it. Pros mostly just try to take advantage of voter dissatisfaction with our current elected officials.
Maybe they should run candidates who mirror their esoteric views. I think we all can tell how that would turn out.
You have not made one argument for a Con Con. The constant harping about how corrupt everybody is does not address the question.
It is a red herring. And you and others accuse the antis of spreading misinformation. Shame! Shame!
===Only in a state begging for change (figuratively and literally) would such otherwise strange bedfellows come to a consensus on this issue.===
The fact that these disparate groups, along with his holiness Jim Edgar and his former rival Dawn Netsch, and many other Illinois dignitaries are against the wasteful convention just could mean that it is a bad idea. Everything has been said that can be said. The voters will decide.
Then guys like Louis can start calling for a do over. Maybe we should just have a referendum on the constitutional convention every year until it passes.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 6:49 pm:
Bambi, you and Bruno would be taken more seriously by undecideds and people in the mainstream if you didn’t put the tinfoil on and throw out patently ridiculous comments that detract from your fundamentally well-researched arguments.
For example:
“Fun fact about that TRS newsletter (and their membership in the Alliance to Protect Rod and Todd)…
It violates the state ethics law… Quite flagrantly at that.”
Flagrant Nonsense.
Here’s the relevant section of the Ethics Act:
11) Distributing, preparing for distribution, or mailing campaign literature, campaign signs, or other campaign material on behalf of any candidate for elective office or for or against any referendum question.
It’s an extreme stretch, John, to call a pension fund’s member newsletter “campaign literature” based on a relatively innocuous article. It’s an even bigger stretch to label TRS, or the Farm Bureau, members of the “Alliance to Protect Rod and Todd.”
BTW, good column, Rich. Sober, reasoned rhetoric is welcomed.
- steve schnorf - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 11:23 pm:
Kristen, if you think Edgar is Archie and Dawn Edith, you are out of your freaking mind.
- steve schnorf - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 11:29 pm:
And, VM, under your logic, if someone is elected by the voters “then it is the right thing to do”. And if Con-Con doesn’t pass, it was the “wrong” thing to do? Sounds pretty simplistic to me.
- Smitty Irving - Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 7:36 am:
I am opposing the Con-Con for pension protections. Yes, I am aware of the federal court opinions cited by supporters of the Con-Con. However, if those opinions are absolute protections, why are cities in California being allowed to file for bankruptcy to get out of pensions? If the court opinions cited were absolute, wouldn’t these filings be subject to summary dismissal? So far as I can determine, none have been summarily dismissed. Anyone able to throw some light on this?
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Oct 28, 08 @ 8:47 am:
It is.
If you don’t get a majority vote, then it is the wrong thing to do. There has been too many powers within this country that twist this into their favor by going around the majority vote.
They don’t believe in democracy. Instead they believe in themselves uber alles. This arrogance is one of the key reasons we do not see as much support for government than we have in the past. The flagrant attitude that a minority is somehow intellectually superior and can go around the majority of voters for their benefit is insulting and takes this country in the wrong direction.
Enough with the partisanship and the attitude. Sell your ideas and candidates and accept the majority’s verdict on Election Day. That is the way it should be done, whether your team and ideas wins or not. Accept the rules, no one should be above them.