61 Comments - Green Line - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:31 am: See: California. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:33 am: No, we already have elections. This would just add another roadblock in the way of getting things done. - Bluefish - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:34 am: Voters are easily fooled - see: Blago. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:34 am: No. Our system of representative democracy works very well. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe enough of my fellow citizens can turn their attention away from Charlie Sheen long enough to make wise public policy choices. Binding referenda will only inflame passions and dumb down the debate over complex issues. That isn’t in anyone’s best interest. - Argh!!!!! - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:36 am: No (and I may get deleted for this, so here goes….), Illinois voters have proven they don’t know what they’re doing when they vote for members of the General Assembly and Governor, so they obviously can’t be trusted to vote on policy issues too. The special interests will flood the airwaves and totally confuse the entire issue just like they already confuse elections of people. - Ramsin - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:37 am: Particularly in a post-Citizen United landscape, this would be a recipe for chaos. - wordonthestreet - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:38 am: No… “the people” tend to make really bad decisions based on limited and often false information. Altho, I must admit, our reps are just about as uninformed and often corrupted. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:40 am: Oh gosh, I’m not sure us little people will be able to formulate an opinion on something like capital punishment without commercials ruining our minds. Us poor sheeple need an elite class of people to make those decisions for us. /snark Over 200 years and we still have people whining that we don’t have a House of Lords. - Tim - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:40 am: Green Line took the word(s) out of my mouth. I’m worried we’d become California. - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:42 am: No, I prefer representative democracy with checks and balances, as envisioned by Mr. Madison. Direct democracy can run a little too hot sometimes, and lead to extreme and contradictory policies, a la California. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:44 am: No. I’ve not been impressed in states that have it (like California). - Montrose - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:44 am: Nope - As others have said, we already have elections. Illinois is messed up enough without adding binding voter referendums to the mix. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:50 am: So it that a “yes” on the question John, or were just venting? - Melissa - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:54 am: No: see California. What a huge waste of time and money. - dupage dan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:55 am: As stated above, I don’t live in California for a variety of reasons. This is one of them. Look how well the referenda culture has worked out for the folks there! Direct voting is not the type of gov’t we have in this country - it is a representative republic. That’s not to say that way is not without flaws. I prefer it to the others. - CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:56 am: tHE VOTE IS 65% NO BTW THIS will a real field day for consultants BTW-2 Senate GOPers are having a “news conference” to annouce the they found a budget deficit and they have 15 whole votes for cuts which remain secret….yikes. Maybe they can have a “news conference” that NoTaxBill lost the election - ZC - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 11:57 am: No; the flap over the last Constitutional convention referenda convinced me that this would not be a workable system of democracy in Illinois. The language was loaded and few (I think) knew what the heck they were voting for or against. Let the representatives decide, and answer to their home constituents. - MrJM - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:00 pm: No. There is nothing enviable about California’s system of binding referenda. – MrJM - Dead Head - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:01 pm: No - see Ramsin above. - x ace - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:02 pm: No — and State’s Attorney Boyd’s grandstand play as the time for announcing plans to start election campaigns show why NO is the answer. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:03 pm: Governor Edward F. Dunne, a progressive Democrat who is to date the only person to have served as the Mayor of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois, was a proponent of referendums and initiatives. The proposed legislation failed in the General Assembly by one vote when a single legislator defected to the other side and vote “nay.” That is about as close as Illinois ever got to having meaningful referendum voting. The current format is loaded up with limitations and restrictions that protect the politicians from the citizens. - grand old partisan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:05 pm: Let me get this straight. The argument so far boils down to this: the people are too disinterested and mis/un-informed to be trusted with policy decisions; such decisions are much better left to the ambitious, greedy, lobbyist-influenced representatives who are elected by the disinterred and mis/un-informed people. Yeah, sure. Makes total sense. And Illinois runs like a well oiled machine, so why rock the boat, right?? I’m not saying that policy-by-referendum isn’t problematic and messy. It is. But that’s not a compelling enough reason, in a democracy, to limit the ways in which the people can affect change to the laws that govern them. And there are more than a few benefits. First among them in my mind is the ability for hard-liners in both parties to move beyond single-issue litmus tests for candidates. After all, who cares if the governor is pro-life or pro-choice if you can simply over-rule him/her with a referendum? - Esquire - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:07 pm: @Bluefish: Hey, be fair — The IEA supported Blagojevich for governor in 2002 and 2006 and kicked in with some big bucks too. Their Wisconsin affiliates (WEA) is doing a bang up job in Madison. Teach your children well. Sorry for the snark. I could not help it. - Just Because - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:08 pm: I would like to say no but with all the Incompetent legislatures we have maybe we should put some things to a vote? - jake - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:11 pm: No. I think the framers of the national constitution got it just about right, that representative democracy, rather than mass democracy, is the best balance between ensuring that people have a voice, but also ensuring that passions of the day will not destabilize the government and the society. They thought about this issue very deeply and very carefully. - Bluejay - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:13 pm: Wow, the cynicism and disparagement of the voters in the comments above is astounding. How can you argue on one hand that representative democracy works well (implying that the voters make informed choices from the available candidates) but yet can’t be trusted to decide policy issues? I’m not in favor of widespread referendum, but it seems to me like the death penalty question is a “constitutional” level policy question that would certainly be appropriate for referendum. I have faith in my fellow voters to take serious issues seriously. - So IL M - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:16 pm: No. This country was not, contrary to what many believe, established as a Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Allowing binding referendums would turn it towards more of a true democracy, which in turn leads too often to “Mob Rule”. Yes there are problems with this system, but we have the power to change them every 2 years. - grand old partisan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:20 pm: jake (et al), the framers also envisioned a system in which the radio of citizens to legislators was much lower and the scope of issues in which the government was involved was much smaller. Your argument would carry more weight if I knew that you were also willing to advocate for an enlargement of the US House and the reduction in federal responsibilities. - amalia - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:22 pm: although I believe that the issue of capital punishment would stand if it were put to the ballot box, I do not wish to live in an environment like California. citizens get their heads swayed by big money and the hard work of doing government is undermined. - grand old partisan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:24 pm: Another note, not those who have raised the issue of the US’s status as a Representative Republic – you are right about that on the federal level. But there is nothing in the US constitution that says states must govern themselves in a similar manner. And, no – before someone says it – I don’t think it’s an irreconcilable contradiction to say that a nation as large as the US should run it’s central government as a limited-power Representative Republic while allowing it’s smaller states to run as true democracies. - Beholden - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:33 pm: I would prefer to trust the judgement of my elected officials. Improvements to our social situation get bogged down and nothing gets done when everybody gets into the act.”Too many cooks spoil the broth.” I was torn on the death penalty issue just like I was torn on the abortion issue. I believe in the sanctity of life. That is probably why I reluctantly lean toward the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. I want to know that my wife and kids are safe. I know that in politics and government that nothing is certain or permanent. That includes the government’s assurance that murderers will be kept in prison for their natural life. Governor Quinn is a nice guy but he is an inept guy. His previous early release of state prisoners was just one of several “Pat Quinn Moments” that showed me that. - Geek Marine - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:34 pm: No - see above (California, Blago, etc.) Sen. William Proxmire once opined that 80% of Americans would give away Constitutional Rights one one subject or another at any time. - RWP - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:41 pm: No- We have a representative form of government which, despite it’s short comings works pretty well. RWP P.S. What Amalia said - So IL M - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:43 pm: “Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.” binding referendums would bring what everyone is for and against, no matter what is right or what is wrong. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:48 pm: No. We can’t even get people out to vote in an election, I don’t want the 30-40% of the people who do vote running everything. - Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:53 pm: No. Ben Franklin was right. We have a republic, “if [we] can keep it.” - grand old partisan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:55 pm: == “I don’t want the 30-40% of the people who do vote running everything” == Um, that’s pretty much what we have already. The politicians know who is and isn’t likely to vote, and cater to their interests. - Alexander cut the knot. - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:55 pm: No. It will be manipulated, lining up the issue for referendum with the appropriate election so that an active minority can determine the outcome in low turn-out election, or to bring out the desired kind of voter for a particular party’s candidate to vote without really caring what the oucome is on the referendum. - Demoralized - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:56 pm: I voted no. It’s insane to have a referendum every time somebody wants to make a policy decision. We have a referendum already. They are called elections. We live in a representative democracy where we choose people to make decisions for us. If you don’t like those decisions then elect somebody else. - grand old partisan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:57 pm: == “binding referendums would bring what everyone is for and against, no matter what is right or what is wrong.” == Um, that’s pretty much what we have already, Part II. ‘Profiles in courage’ among politicians are the rare exception, not the rule. We already get what’s going to help get the bum reelected instead of what’s “right,” so what’s the harm in cutting out the middle-man. - Irish - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 12:59 pm: So the consensus is no, because the people who choose the representatives, senators, governor, aren’t smart enough to make an informed decision themselves. Mmmmmmmm. Really? And those Representatives, Senators, Governor, have alway been able to act expeditiously when they realize a problem exists that needs fixing. Right? I guess I would be for this if there was a track record of inactivity on the part of the GA and the governor in the face of crisis or a record of gridlock due to partisan politics, self preservation, or leaders protecting their power base. And there hasn’t been any cases of detriment to the populace by purposeful procrastination by the Representatives, Senators, Governor. Correct? - grand old partisan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 1:01 pm: == “It’s insane to have a referendum every time somebody wants to make a policy decision” == I’m pretty sure that no one is proposing that we completely dissolve the legislature and have a referendum on every issue. The idea is that there should be a mechanism for allowing these issues to go to a popular vote is people feel strongly about it. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 1:10 pm: I believe that all of us are fully capable of making rational decisions and capable of voting to reflect this. When you start to question “voters” you begin to question the very foundation of our democratic beliefs. After hundreds of years we have discovered that voters are often more right than wrong, and often more right that those who claim that voters need to be treated like morons. Empower people, not elitists. - Esquire - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 1:30 pm: While it made no difference in the primary, the Harold Washington videotape segment on Pat Quinn’s competence about said it all. - Northernwatersports - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 1:39 pm: We already have policy referendums; they’re called elections. If only 5% more of the electorate came out to vote, and vote each and every opportunity they are provided, I believe we would begin to see the changes occur that are so necessary. Now getting candidates to actually state a substantive policy position during an election is a whole other story! - Springfield Skeptic - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 1:51 pm: That’s why we have elections. - D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 1:54 pm: religion may be the opiate of the masses, but a cry for “popular referendum” is becoming the cry for those on the losing end of single issue policies which inflame small groups who can raise big money. What started as populism and reform has become the direct opposite–a tool of big money to corrupt the system. Voters don’t vote; product is turned out. - @VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 2:04 pm: Your statement questions our entire form of government. Our government isn’t a pure democracy where the people are asked everytime a decision is made. We elect people to do that for us. Are you advocating abandoning our form of government in favor of government by referendum? - Demoralized - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 2:05 pm: That was me above. Typing too fast . . . - Highland, IL - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 2:18 pm: We are a representative government, we send people to Springfield to do this job. - Nona in Chicago - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 2:35 pm: No on referendums. Here’s why… There’s plenty of blame being heaped on the government and politicians, but the one group who seems to always escape criticism is the group who bares he most responsibility; voters. Ask a voter for an opinion on any given subject and he/she will give you an earful. Ask them to give you facts to back up their beliefs, and you get that deer in the headlights stare. Most voters never take the time to discover the facts of an issue. Give them a snappy slogan, and that’s pretty much all they need, three or four words, to make up their mind on grave policy; (e.g. weapons of mass destruction, death panels, Obama’s citizenship, etc.) In a country where the educated are derided as elitists and ignorance is toted as a down-home, American value, where people contemptuously dismiss scientific findings because Glenn Beck disagrees with them, I wouldn’t trust the public with any more power than is absolutely necessary for the United States to keep it’s status as a democracy. - Conservative Republican - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 2:38 pm: @ Small Town Liberal If referenda would be superfluous due to the fact that we “already have elections”, explain to me the propriety of lame duck legislators enacting momentous legislation such as civil unions, death penalty elimination, income tax increases, between the time of an “election” and the date of the new assembly, when many of those lame ducks will be retired from the legislature and no longer accountable to the voters. Would you accept a constitutional restriction on the ability of legislators to legislate between the date of an election and the commencement of the newly formed assembly 2-3 months later? - PPHS - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 3:14 pm: No. I used to foolishly think that these guys on death row, were all guilty of something, anyway. It took a really effective staffer to set me right on that one. But, I fear that most of the public thinks the same way that I used to. I didn’t understand that even some of these guys that confess are innocent. - dupage dan - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 3:56 pm: Besides, If we were to be voting on every little thing going on with one referendum or another, who would have time to read the capitolfaxblog? - Nothing's easy - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 3:59 pm: The story by a prosecuter about the serial killer who traded information for his life…to me, that story affirms the actions by Governor Quinn. So, if you’re really bad and had many,many victims but weren’t caught, you live. But, only one victim - you may die? Preposterous. Prosecuters are stung by losing the God-rights of the power of life and death. Scary. - Robert - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 4:23 pm: No, as voters are even more ignorant of the issues than their reps…unless it is vote by online poll at capfax blog among the unbanned, in which case, I’m all in favor of it. - Wensicia - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 4:31 pm: ==No, as voters are even more ignorant of the issues than their reps…unless it is vote by online poll at capfax blog among the unbanned, in which case, I’m all in favor of it.== Can’t say it any better than this. - Draznnl - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 4:51 pm: Wasn’t the Cutback Amendment bad enough? Why would we want to become even more ungovernable? - Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Mar 10, 11 @ 8:49 pm: Actually, I think that it’s a grand idea, just like instituting Recall in Illinois was, so long as there are well thought through restrictions/limitations, for example, disallowing the public from initiating Referenda on certain extremely important matters, perhaps like Homeland Security and highly contagious disease matters. The more democracy the better! - LakeviewJ - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:11 am: As a different Ed Burke once said, “If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong.” - Conservative Republican - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 10:09 am: =As a different Ed Burke once said, “If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong.” = I certainly do not dispute the wisdom of Edmund Burke in his famous Speech to the Electors of Bristol, but the fact is that there is no real courage being exhibited by lameduck legislators who are no longer accountable to the electorate for their votes cast between the election and the convening of the new General Assembly. Why didn’t they exhibit their “courage” by holding the vote before the election? I think we know the answer to that. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.