45 Comments - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:17 am: Another tough question, Rich. Compact and contiguous, and let the chips fall where they may. I voted yes because one Congressweasel from town is better than one from town, and one from 200 miles away as far as being accountable to the constituents. However, two votes in Congress are better than one. - Anon3 - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:17 am: I grew up on the edge of a district which went back and forth. Some times the next door congressman who at one time represented my home town was very helpful etc I think it helps - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:24 am: In my experience, more than one Congressman can be very beneficial for communities. Media markets matter as much or more in the definition of community as well as in the amount of attention a community receives from its Congressmen, but that’s another topic. With more than one Congressman, communities have access to more and sometimes better constituent services. With more than one Congressman, communities benefit from the different committee assignments of the Congressmen representing them. More seniority helps too. The trick is to use them both equally and hold them both accountable to the communities. I guarantee that if you ignore a Congressman, he or she will ignore you as well. It isn’t a hard and fast rule that more is better, but there are advantages that shouldn’t be dismissed. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:27 am: I don’t usually weigh in, but I will on this one. I voted “more than one,” because there are plenty of mopes in Congress, or at least congresscritters who don’t care about towns outside of their base. In those and other instances, having more than one can be a real benefit. Also, no single suburban or Downstate city is big enough to completely dominate a congressional district. So, there’s always a risk that another town - perhaps the critter’s hometown - will get more attention. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:31 am: - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:27 am: “Also, no single suburban or Downstate city is big enough to completely dominate a congressional district.” Apparently also true of Cook County since they felt compelled to stretch into the suburbs. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:33 am: One is best for downstate communities - even bigger ones like Springfield, C-U, B-N, Peoria or the Quad Cities. The real concern is when they split up small towns like Litchfield or Lawrenceville. Some of these splits also cause even larger distances between constituents and a Congressperson’s district offices. Keep in mind that even with one Congressperson you still have the two U.S. Senators who can lend support to projects and initiatives. Also, if you have to Congresspersons from each side of the aisle, it’s not a given that each MOC would support a town’s or county’s priorities. - hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:33 am: I’m not voting in this poll because I think it all depends on who the congresscritter is. If you have a great congresscritter then you would want your whole town in that district. But if you are represented by two congresscritters then if one happens to be lazy or out of touch then I guess you have a chance to appeal to the other one, ideally with that second congresscritter not being a mope either. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:36 am: I voted along with you, Rich. I think its ESPECIALLY helpful when your town or county is represented by members of both parties. Getting BIG stuff done in a legislative body on for locals — whose issues are non-partisan — usually requires bipartisan support. For example, Winnebago County has some serious manufacturing of Dept. of Defense subcontracts going on. Want to protect those jobs? Its good to have leverage with both the House Republicans AND the White House. - mokenavince - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:37 am: We can only hope for the best. That said 1 rep working souley for a Southern district, would be the best bet for that area. You send 1 Rep. in what should be a safe seat, he or she gets some seniorty,and the folks there get heard. These long north south districts don’t seem to help any body. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:41 am: I do think its a slightly different case when you’re talking about the state legislature, BTW. Those you have to look at on a case-by-case basis. AND since Democrats control the House and Senate, having GOP representation isn’t AS important. And having one Democratic Rep or Senator could be great, but having just one GOP Rep or Senator is probably not so great, unless they happen to be in leadership. Springfield, for example, has not fared so well from it GOP representation. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:43 am: I don’t know, Rich & Cincy. Peoria and its surrounding sister cities have had a stranglehold on the 18th District for a long time. The Quad Cities as an aggregate has dominated the 17th CD and the previous district for decades. The current 16th CD is certainly Rockford-centric. And the 15th CD is based very heavily on C-U, especially with all of the small counties Tim Johnson currently represents. In each of those instances, you had or have one MOC who is from one of those major district anchors and each is the “base” for the district operations. Those cities may not be as large as an Aurora or Naperville, but they make up a large chunk of each district. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:44 am: ===I do think its a slightly different case when you’re talking about the state legislature, BTW.=== I agree to a point. A downstate or suburban town can dominate a state legislative district. But the partisanship thing is also accurate. If you’re in a Republican town, having some of your town in a Dem district isn’t a bad idea, considering political realities here. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 11:52 am: It depends. If I were a resident of a town like Rockford, I would say one. The average population of each district will now be approx 700k & change. That is about half the size of the Rockford metro area. So even if you had a seat centered on Rockford-metro, it would still just barely be a majority constituency of that seat. If you are going to split the 300k residents of Rockford-metro between two districts, each district is going to have to take in some portion of another metro area. So now that rep has to serve two masters, who may have demographics in common, but also have many competing interests. Of course, if I lived in a rural area between metro areas, I’d rather see the metro areas lumped into districts together and have at least one or two purely rural districts to represent my interests. Being a suburbanite, I think it’s a toss-up. Perhaps if my village want to get something done, being split gives it multiple channels to work. But it also means that my village’s constituency is that much less of a force in each district. - Louis Howe - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:01 pm: More than one….It’s really a question of population threshold and local partisanship. In my opinion, if a county/area provides around 15-25% of a legislative district’s vote totals and is persuadable or part of the candidate’s party base, then the county is better off with a split district. For example, the Peoria County (185,000 pop.) is better off with two congressional districts because the area is large enough to be important to at least one congressman. The same goes for Winnebago (Pop. 299,000). Smaller counties/areas are better off with single district representation, if for no other reason then simplicity. - CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:02 pm: Dear grand old partisan … if I lived in Rockford….I would be looking in a mirror saying how the heck did I get stuck here. More is always better if the local officials know how to work the equation. If they just sit back and wait for the manna…then they probabaly come up short. Coming up short appears to be a Rockford tradition lately - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:06 pm: I voted more than one. When I lived out in the Quads, Jim Leach and Lane Evans, as well as Harkin, Grassley, Dixon and Simon seemed to work well together on issues impacting both sides of the river, particularly when it came to Rock Island Arsenal and the Army Corp of Engineers. The comparison isn’t exact, but it’s close. - Way Way Down Here - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:22 pm: More than one. Sparseley populated rural areas are often successfully ignored because they lack the votes to be of consequence. - Way Way Down Here - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:24 pm: Sparsely, sorry. - D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:26 pm: More is better. - Yep - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:30 pm: If one of Rockford’s Congressmen ends up being Schilling, they can use all the help they can get! Alright, driveby Schilling bashing done for the day. I tend to agree with Houston that two is just right. They are able to get more resources. Having them be from different parties isn’t a bad idea either. A place like the QC would benefit from having one Member serve on Ag. And another serve on Transportation. If you get three or more in a district, it is almost certain that one member will neglect the area furthest away from their hometown. See Hare and Schilling in Springfield- neither travel their very much. - Liberty First - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:36 pm: Two votes is better than one when it comes to doling out the spoils. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:41 pm: In any situation, more votes is always better. - Louis Howe - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:42 pm: Here’s another point about why we are hearing so much angst from the republican partisans. For years, Bob Michel, and then Ray LaHood, demanded that Peoria County not be slit up. The reason was that they didn’t want an incumbent democrat congressman representing their home media market. In addition, downstate congressmen tend to run the local GOTV efforts, and local republicans didn’t want to see high power campaign politicos jazzing up local democratic turnout. Peoria County is a swing county and could be easily split. However, in what may seem counterintuitive, the republican congressmen didn’t want to give up the heavily democratic areas because those areas were safely diluted in a 58% republican congressional district. Peoria County will be much better off with two congressional districts, especially if democrats elect a congressman in the 17th District - John Ruberry - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:44 pm: It’s completely idiotic to think a town is better represented in a congressional district. Why not split Rockford four ways–as Chicago’s Chinatown was done in the old state legislative map? - Shore - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 12:52 pm: Depends on the leadership of the member. There are some communities that do just fine with one, and probably others that have multiple members that don’t do as well. Pennsylvania used to have mr.pork john murtha. There were towns in his district that were represented by just one guy in contrast to philly which probably had several. At the end of the day, given the amount of pork he delivered home you could have made the argument his constituents-especially those in johnstown that got the federally funded brand new airport used by 3 people a day-were better off with just him than those in philly with an assortment of backbenchers. - Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 1:00 pm: In the olden days when newspapers were a major force, it was more important to have multiple Reps for the press coverage. Now, those Reps have to work harder to get noticed by the public… - NW Illinois - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 1:06 pm: Here in NW Illinois, we often see the benefits of having two or three congressman (one from Illinois, one from Iowa, etc.) working the same issue. That adds more power and punch, so yes - 2 or 3 is better than one as long as you get them focused collectively. - bored now - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 1:10 pm: i didn’t vote. my answer would be: depends on the member(s) of congress. some congressmen are great at constituent services and welcome contact with local officials. if you had two of more of these representing you, then the answer would be, sure! but other congress critters aren’t that accessible to local officials, hate to travel their districts and have grown fat on the hog, so to speak. they actually like having lobbyists act as go-betweens between them and local officials. if you ended up in one of their districts, then you are kinda screwed… - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 1:11 pm: Here’s one other thing to consider: Currently there are NO earmarks allowed in Congress, the Senate or in the President’s proposed budget. Earmarks are now a dirty word. If earmarks are eventually banned or become taboo in D.C. to the point where no one will push for them, you can have all 18 MOCs from Illinois representing the same town and it won’t matter. All they can do is promise to write letters of support and make phone calls. Of course, there is still political gamesmanship and Obama will take care of some pals, but we’re not talking about the same result as a direct earmarking and grant process. So even for Springfield, which has 3 MOCs, the number doesn’t matter if a project or long-term program cannot be placed directly into a fiscal year budget. - annonymous - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 1:51 pm: Two is always better than one. Three is better yet. - Shemp - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 1:54 pm: Quality > Quantity - LouisXIV - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 2:27 pm: I generally think it’s better to have a large part of one district than a small part of two. Take a look at Chinatown in Chicago. It was divided among 4 state rep districts, with only 5% or so of each district being in the Chinatown area. The leaders of Chinatown argued that they had no one to go to to really represent their interests. Under the new redistricting most of Chinatown is in one district (though it will probably elect a latino). Ironically, Chinatown was then split among 3-4 congressional districts, which the Chinese community has complained about. Is Chinatown better off being 10% of one congressional district or 2.5% of 4? Its leaders certainly seem to think 10% of one is better than the alternative and I would tend to agree. - Lil Enchilada - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 2:33 pm: Know the benefits of more than one person representing an area - even if it’s two states. Feels like better representation for the area. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 2:37 pm: If you only read the comments, you’d assume the poll voting was overwhelmingly in favor of more than one. The actual votes tell a different story. It’s kind of weird that few are explaining a vote for one Congressman. Why is that? - Ghost of John Brown - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 2:42 pm: As my father was fond of saying, politicians are as “nervous as long-tail tomcats in a room full of rocking chairs”. A lot of the politicians that I know are paranoid. If 10% of their district is part of a City, they will pander like Paula Abdul on American Idol to make sure they don’t lose out on that 10%. - Louis Howe - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 2:48 pm: 47th Ward. “It’s kind of weird that few are explaining a vote for one Congressman. Why is that?” My guess is that many voting for one Congressman have a partisan reason either because they know or want someone to run from their home county. Obviously, a split county means fewer votes on your home turf. - jake - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 3:10 pm: I voted one, but it depends on the size of the city, and what other cities are in the district. The fundamental divide in any district is urban vs. rural. If a city is divided into more than one district, and if each of the parts of the city is put into a district that is majority rural, the city will get screwed. If parts of several cities are put into a district that becomes predominantly urban, then the cities will do well. - Elmhurst - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 3:19 pm: As a general principle, I’m with the more is more crowd. Municipal borders as a rule don’t confine unique and special communities. Your town is not a special community. It is pretty much like the next one, and if itsn’t quite like the next one it’s like one a couple towns over. And when you’re talking about matters that rise to the level of warranting the attention of a congressional office, you aren’t talking about things that are confined to the basically arbitrary boundaries of cities and towns. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 3:42 pm: Elmhurst, I’m sure we’ll both feel well represented by Quigley. - Justice - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 6:09 pm: Perhaps the vote vs comments reflect the fact that perhaps folks feel that it is easier to deal with one weasel than two…just saying. I too like the idea of more representation, more competition for various ideas, and more ideas, but I have a tendency toward mistrust given past track records and the state of affairs today and would rather worry about one versus two. - anon sequitor - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 7:19 pm: Undivided cities in a safe district get taken for granted. Split cities in competitive districts get lots of attention. I voted for split. - CME to leave? - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 8:36 pm: Trib reporting that CME Group is threatening to leave over the new taxes passed on corporations. Quick - someone get those lame charts somehow explaining how doubling the corporate taxes were not really that big of a deal. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 8, 11 @ 9:23 pm: In response to a January move by the Illinois government to raise the state’s corporate tax rate to 7 percent from 4.8 percent, Duffy said he and CME’s chief financial officer, Jamie Parisi, were exploring the possibility of moving CME’s corporate tax-paying base. –In response to a January move by the Illinois government to raise the state’s corporate tax rate to 7 percent from 4.8 percent, Duffy said he and CME’s chief financial officer, Jamie Parisi, were exploring the possibility of moving CME’s corporate tax-paying base. “We’re investigating what would be in the best interests of our shareholders,” Duffy said, noting that such a move would not mean CME would abandon its presence in Chicago, home to its markets for over a century.– If you read the story, how much do you think CME paid in corporate income taxes when shares were down 12 percent? - Rockford Resident - Thursday, Jun 9, 11 @ 2:06 am: We’re not stuck here…we love it here. This is bad for Rockford, anyway you slice it. God Bless the soul of Zeke Giorgi - he would never have let this happen to his hometown. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 9, 11 @ 9:47 am: ===God Bless the soul of Zeke Giorgi - he would never have let this happen to his hometown. === You’re saying Zeke wouldn’t have wanted part of his town represented by a Democrat in Congress? You’re nuts. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.