45 Comments - Cal Skinner - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 11:49 am: Fat chance the Illinois Supreme Court would add a neutral person to a remap commission. They run in partisan elections. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 11:53 am: Answer the question, please. - Ron Burgundy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:07 pm: I’d support the neutral drawing of district maps either by commission or just by a computer fed with neutral data the most, because the system we have now encourages and practically guarantees political gerrymandering and skews the makeup of the legislature for the next ten years. Drawing more competitive districts would go a long way to removing some of the partisan gridlock in Springfield. I’d probably support public funding of judicial races the least at this point. It’s a laudable goal but fiscally problematic at this time for obvious reasons. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:10 pm: It’s hard to get excited over these proposals, but I’ll try to answer. I’d favor public funding of judicial races if there was a mechanism that provided funds based on some measureable support for candidates. I don’t know what that would be, but it doesn’t seem right to provide public funds to fringe candidates or others with no shot of competing. Again, hard to determine what the criteria should be, but without some criteria, I don’t favor giving every single candidate equal funding simply because they qualified for the ballot. Also, I think we should finance this by increasing the fees for attorney registration in Illiniois rather than by a general tax. Attorneys are the only one allowed to run for judge, and they have the most at stake with a system free of bias. They should pay for that system. The worst idea is of course, term limits. if you think lobbyists are too powerful now, just wait until you have huge numbers of freshman trying to understand how a bill gets passed. It will do for leadership what the Cutback Amendment did: empower the permanent legislative staff, who will become the unelected decision-makers. Term limits poll well because most people think it’s a solution to some of the larger problems in Springfield. It isn’t. And the unintended consequences are enormous. - BelleAire - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:12 pm: Term Limits - muon - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:13 pm: I most support commission redistricting from that list. Besides the benefits mentioned by Ron B, it provides soft term limits with incumbents at risk every ten years. I see that as a 2-for-1 advantage for that choice. - Zool - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:15 pm: Of all of these proposals, I’d prefer the one which has the most positive impact. I believe that’s term limits for legislators - BelleAire - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:15 pm: I forgot to explain. I think it is simplistic way to end some of the corruption in IL. It may not work and I am sure it will be easily reversed. It’s worth a try. - dave - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:22 pm: I’d only support neutral drawing of legislative districts if every state had neutral drawing. In a Democrat controlled State, it doesn’t make sense to give up that advantage in the drawing of maps if other Republican controlled states are not going to do the same. I like open primaries. The rest I am indifferent to and don’t see many advantages to. - O RLY - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:24 pm: Re: Term limits will only empower lobbyists and legislative staff… How about we stop electing morons to legislative office who can’t figure out what they think without someone spoon-feeding them? There are people who can start thinking intelligently on public policy from day 1 of being sworn in. Maybe we ought to stop assuming there needs to be a permanent political class and start structuring our institutions so as to not require one. - cynical - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:27 pm: I can’t decide between term limits and neutral map drawing. Either of these would go a long way toward improving the quality of our legislators. - Zool - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:29 pm: I just read 47th Ward’s comments regarding term limits and judicial races. I can understand public funding in appellate and supreme court races, but do not agree with it for judges at the trial court level, which is where 90% of the elective judicial positions exist. IMO, the problem at this level is not the issue of fundraising and where the dollars come from. The vast majority of voters don’t know who they’re voting for when looking at these positions. The problem is educating the public about the candidates qualifications to hold the position. Not sure how public funding helps on that issue. On the appellate level, different story, as the sheer cost of mounting a credible campaign requires fundraising of $200-500K for an app ct race outside cook county and $1M Plus for the state supreme court. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:40 pm: Most = Eliminate Judicial Contributions ( State Farm’s alleged manipulation and deception in 2004 Ill Sup Ct race and Avery v State Farm overturn provide the Why ) Least = Open Primary ( would make it too easy for one party to cross over and choose a weak candidate for the other party) - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:41 pm: I support all of these. Term Limits especially. But….It doesn’t matter what the voters are in favor of, the elected officials will never listen. - PaGo - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 12:58 pm: Why does everyone think the rainbow and unicorn are in term limits land? Come on, a party can get their candidate elected and have favor over them. I think you think of Mike M. when you make these over generalizing statements about how term limits reform would change politics as ususal. There needs to be some type of redistricting reform. Allowing one party to basically run wild when drawing boundaries is fundamentally unfair. - Sparky - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:03 pm: I LOVE the idea of having an independent panel drawing up our legislative districts. Only a vengeance-minded partisan could enjoy the way we do it now. Public funding for judicial races is critical: let them focus on being fair-minded arbiters instead of politically-divided schmoozers. I heartily oppose any of the reforms meant to save us from ourselves, especially term limits. Change the things that make it nearly impossible to unseat incumbents: don’t just ban my right to vote for someone. Oh, and aren’t primaries for parties? That’s why I never vote in them. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:06 pm: =Everyone of these ideas are stupid and will never see the light of day= I don’t agree with the first assertion - I do agree with the second. This is a fools exercise since those being polled here have no power to bring it about. Those who have the power won’t willingly give it up. Basic power analysis. I would still answer - term limits are ok with me. I do not operate under the illusion that elections are the best term limit system. Plenty of evidence that incumbents have a very large edge over challengers. I believe Judges should be chosen by a qualified unbiased, apolitical choice committee. That one could never exist must be accepted, however. Open primaries - just how would that help? A legislative redistricting map created in an unbiased way - NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. I like the idea, tho. The Judicial choice thingee about a neutral party to decide a tie in a partisan dispute - see above. Hey, what’s the fun in being a party leader if you can’t pad your power base? - Responsa - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:12 pm: My thinking has evolved on term limits. I used to feel strongly that voters should have the right to choose when a candidate’s political career was over–not a time limit law saying so. But I have come to realize that as lifers become entrenched and uber powerful in certain districts the barrier to entry for anyone else makes it almost impossible to overcome. I also think money paid to politicians might be lessened somewhat if special interests knew their contributions were merely a short term investment for favors rather than a long term investment for favors. So: –term limits –most favored –open primary –least favored (There are some simple and basic philosophical dfferences between the parties. People within parties need to retain control of their nominating process and select their party’s candidates without crossover “help” from the opposing party’s voters) - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:18 pm: Term Limits - Least. Why? There are already term limits, 2 for a IL House seat, 4-4-2 for an IL Senate seat, etc. Run someone who can beat the incumbent, run an issue campaign that can beat an incumbent, or when yo get the map, DRAW the incumbent out. Voters are apathetic. If they want someone out SO bad, they do it … Rosty, Crane, Mosely-Braun … you can get them out on Scandal, on Longevity, or Popularity … if you VOTE. Open Primay - MOST! … Why? Some of these “safe” seats would have real “primary” battles if you got a good shot at the apple, and a 2nd shot at the apple with the no candidate getting the 50% + 1, and making 2 Dems or 2 Repubs battle it out in November. THAT would be fun! It would also allow those districts to run up huge pluralities for members of their own party in Inter-Party run-offs at the satewide level. Turnout could be strategic and helpful/hurtful for the parties, so more state party/legislative leader involvement. Finally, and conversly, it would stop the ILGOP from putting up “dopes” to run in November if Jesse and Lisa get their 50% + 1 in the primary, like they would have gotten against the slate the ILGOP put up. The ILGOP would actually have to work, or admit they can’t do it and give up. Either way, the Open Primary is a great tool to help elections and parties. - lake county democrat - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:21 pm: Most: redistricting — the current system is nothing less than an attack on democracy, seeking to make our votes as meaningless as possible. Least: term limits — I’m not unsympathetic but it’s not even Constitutional on federal level, empowers lobbyists at state level. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:24 pm: To clarify… My interpretation of the Open Primary is that of a seat, with every candidate running at the same time, and if 1 candidate gets 50% + 1 vote, that candidate is declared the “winner” and in the “(Blank)-Elect”. If no candidate secures 50% + 1 vote, the top 2, and ONLY top 2, regardless of party, would run-off for the seat. That is what I favor. This crossover/voting in BOTH primaries is brutal, and not something that would “fly” anyway. Thank you. - Burning Down da House - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:25 pm: Wish they would have asked if judges should face human opponents, not retention votes. - Ace Matson - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:29 pm: They are all good ideas, except for term limits, which would just empower staff and lobbyists with the institutional memory and power. Limits should be placed on legislative leaders’ tenure as leaders, however. But it all doesn’t matter one whit, because Illinois’ political leaders will never let these reforms happen. Illinois is truly a political hell-hole! - mokenavince - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:31 pm: Term limits would be worth while,we all get in a rut in our jobs. I feel politicans in gereral get way to comfortable in their jobs. I suspect most politicans have little or no pressure in their jobs.Great pensions, insurance,no lay offs. Do this for 20 years and you prospective changes. Think how much better our would be without Madigan running it for all these years. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:34 pm: Open primaries should be the law of the land. Of the parties want to run a popularity contest, lerlt them pay for it. Fear of people trying skew results by Dems voting for GOP candidates and vice-president versa is a red Herring. Open primaries might also lead to better candidates. As for splitting tickets, that might also lead to more voter turnout and a more involved electorate. - Lady GaGa - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:42 pm: TERM LIMITS For Everyone, including Lobbyists and Staffers. Rich your ok we will keep you around. - LisleMike - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:42 pm: I would most favor nuetral map drawing if it included a requirement that representatives actually live in the district… Least favor open primary. If independents don’t want to id themselves as D or R, run an Indie and vote for him/her. Cross over voting occurred in past and is why we have it now, I think. Terms limits not a bad thing…more plus than minus - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:43 pm: Vice-versa, not vice-president versa. Sorry. - TimB - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:48 pm: I like them all, but would most support term limits and a neutral commission drawn map. Way too many folks are way too comfortable in Springfield, and Gerrymandering, by either side is despicable and destroys the idea of fair representation. I least support a neutral member on the panel (don’t need it if I get my second wish)! - Just Observing - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:49 pm: Most supportive = neutral drawing of legislative map. Least supportive = term limits. Term limits are nothing more than a lazy, specious means to “reform” the political system. I do not believe in limiting voter choice by some arbitrary cap. Further, I think it plays into an erroneous notion that public policy requires no skill set or policy knowledge — this will only contribute to less experienced, less knowlegeable legislators. Although, I admit we can’t get much worse than what we have now - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:56 pm: Most: Redistricting. See the Ohio plan. Democrats would still have the edge in an open process that has maps drawn using a competitive process and graded using a rubric. This is only right because this state is Democratic leaning. What such a process does end is the gerrymandering, shown in spades in the 2010 remap. Least: What 47th said about term limits. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:59 pm: I like all of them, especially term limits and an open primary. - Just Me - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 1:59 pm: Easy, re-districting done by a computer. To allow the party in power to draw its own maps is a completely corrupt process. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 2:03 pm: Most: Public funding for judicial campaigns, with the caveat that any significant outside 3rd party spending would trigger no-cap fundraising. Least: Term limits. Sounds good on paper, but doesn’t work as intended. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 2:07 pm: I would, however, favor leadership term limits, as well as committee chairmanship term limits. - Logic not emotion - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 2:29 pm: Most support: Computer drawn maps by independent party. Least support: IL Supreme Court adding person to redis panel (not sure any really neutral). Overall: I’d support all except Supreme Court one. Mixed thoughts on term limits. See pros and cons. Limits on leadership is good idea; but think it would just turn into game of rotating chairs among the power brokers and actual term limits (with time before could be paid lobbyist) would be only semi-effective approach. I would also really like to see meaningful ethics reform requiring at least full public disclosure of any conflicts of interest beyond nominal level. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 2:31 pm: ===I would, however, favor leadership term limits, as well as committee chairmanship term limits.=== Rich, Mike Brown on Line 2 for you … If I had to have ANY term limit, it would be the Committee Chair limit. Maybe an 8 GA terms for leadership, (16 years should be long enough to move a Caucus’ Agenda … maybe …). I would have to see how the Speaker/President, Minority Leaders could get “Chair Limits” through unless they “term-limited” themselves too. - Modest Proposal - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 2:41 pm: Well 47th does bring up some good points about term limits, but I disagree. We are talking about limiting them to 10 “consecutive” years in the house. and 12 “consecutive” years in the Senate. Hell, they can take a 2 year vacation. - Aldyth - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 3:06 pm: Term limits, which will never happen in Illinois. Or at least not in my lifetime. - TwoFeetThick - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 3:45 pm: Most: Public funding for judicial campaigns. The influence of money doesn’t belong in the courtroom. Like others have noted, I’d like to see public financing of other campaigns as well. Reducing/eliminating the effect of money in politics might prevent the revolution. Least: Term limits. You might as well name a bill creating this “The Lobbyist and Staff Empowerment Act of 20XX.” Just look at what’s happened in states that have implemented them. You end up with officials who, by the time they figure things out and build up some institutional knowledge, are headed out the door to make room for the next batch of clueless newbies. Mixed: Change to an open primary. I like the idea, but removing the ability of parties and candidates to target voters means you’re going to greatly increase the amount of money needed - the cost of campaigns will skyrocket when everyone has to be sent the mailer, meaning more money will have to be raised, meaning money will have even greater influence. Mixed: Legislative maps created by commission. Good idea, but politics will still have influence - who appoints the members? Someone has to have that power. And whomever does will have power over the process, regardless of what is publicly presented. - reformer - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 3:46 pm: The legislature won’t approve any of these reforms, despite landslide public support. The one I’d most like to see is the OPEN PRIMARY. Public declaration of party is the big disincentive to voter participation in primaries. A secret ballot ought to be secret. Most Americans get that. Party bosses don’t. - reformer - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 3:50 pm: 2′ Thick You give one side effect of the Open Primary. Here’s another: It would encourage parties and candidates to do more door-to-door work to personally identify their party loyalists. Then they’d know whom to mail to. - TwoFeetThick - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 4:03 pm: @Reformer Yeah, I’m not opposed to more door-to-door but, again, that will mean more money. Who’s going to pay for those people? Even if they were all volunteers, which they never will be, they will still expect travel cost reimbursement, and a meal or drinks. Something for their efforts. If you put them on the phone and have them call voters, phones aren’t free either. Plus, most voters aren’t comfortable telling a stranger what their party preference is. If you ask, they’ll probably tell you they’re an Independent. Right now, campaigns can ID voter party for minimal cost from voting records. Taking that away doesn’t come for free. - walkinfool - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 4:09 pm: Best idea: neutral commission for redistricting Good idea: public funding for judicial campaigns Worst idea: term limits for legislators, because then the bureaucracy and lobbyists will take full control. (However leadership term limits could be helpful.) - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 2, 11 @ 9:40 pm: WE have to end gerrymandering. Computers have turned it into a reverse election where the legislators pick the voters. Technology has turned it into a monster. Term limits are a bad idea. Voters should not expect self cleaning government. It is foolhardy to lead them into believing that doing nothing is OK. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.