|
Beware the reformers
Thursday, Feb 28, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller * Within an otherwise interesting story on whether ranked choice voting would be a good thing for Chicago is this little nugget…
Um, there were 14 candidates for mayor and a kabillion aldermanic candidates. The mayoral candidate who finished first, Lori Lightfoot, raised less money than everyone else in the top tier (except Willie Wilson, who reported raising just slightly less than her). And then there’s Ald. Proco “Joe” Moreno, who lost by 22 points, even though he out-raised his opponent by well over 10-1. If you listen to some of these reformers, you’d never want to run for office because they believe you have zero chance of winning. That’s just not true. I mean, for crying out loud, Ald. Pat O’Connor himself was forced into a runoff. Does the machine always have gigantic built-in advantages? Of course it does. Should some laws that benefit the machine be changed? You bet they should. But empty cynicism never changed a thing.
|
 |
|
|
- Not It - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:27 am:
Um, Rich. Please look at who won the Dem Gov primary in 2018 and the GOP Gov primary in 2014 and then explain how huge amounts of cash and wealth didn’t matter in those races.
Only in Illinois.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:29 am:
Not It, the money mattered for sure. Those two races aren’t all races. Also, Rauner ran circles around his opponents, money or no money. And Kennedy and Biss just weren’t great candidates.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:31 am:
…And Jeanne Ives almost beat Rauner last March with a fraction of his money.
By your logic, she shoulda just not bothered.
- Squround - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:33 am:
Yes…because Florida is absolutely the standard to which we should all aspire!!
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:35 am:
–“You don’t have a lot of choices. Things are decided by money.”–
–Um, there were 14 candidates for mayor and a kabillion aldermanic candidates. The mayoral candidate who finished first, Lori Lightfoot, raised less money than everyone else in the top tier –
Not only that, but the premise of the piece is that so many candidates in the races caused voter confusion and paralysis. Middlekauf’s statements step all over that message.
- Big Jer - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:44 am:
===But empty cynicism never changed a thing==
I think that applies to many, and I am guilty of “empty cynicism” myself at times. I think Rich just started a new meme.
I little long for a hashtag but hmm…
- Paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:45 am:
- Squround - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:33 am:
Yes…because Florida is absolutely the standard to which we should all aspire!!
You beat me to it. I would argue that money matters just as much, if not more, in Florida.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 11:46 am:
Unfortunately rational argument and appeal to principles hasn’t changed a thing either! On this question though I’m agnostic - I consider myself a reformer, but I don’t know how much I want ranked voting, especially when you have Madigan and those of his mindset willing to run dummy candidates. I’d much rather move the voting dates to the summer or fall.
- Not It - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 12:04 pm:
Rich, ya’ got me on the Ives point.
- The Captain - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 12:35 pm:
Ranked choice voting is a moderately good idea at times, this Chicago mayoral election being one of them, but it has some scary flaws and it’s being oversold. I think had ranked choice voting been in place for this 14 candidate election it would have worked well and allowed voters the option of voting for multiple candidates that they liked. In a field this large I think it would have done the best job of selecting the candidate favored by the most people.
However RCV proponents have been selling it as a way to reduce or eliminate negative campaigning, the idea being you will need to stay positive to try to win 2nd or 3rd choice votes from voters who are supporting another candidate in the top spot. That’s true in some situations but in some situations it creates a perverse incentive to not just go negative but to go scorched earth negative. In other situations there is a perverse incentive to divide the electorate and make them hostile to each other. If you think back to the 80’s during Council Wars when Chicago was “Beirut on the Lake” we already had a divided electorate and that would have been unwelcome, to say the least.
Hopefully ranked choice voting is understood for both its pros and cons and isn’t just peddled as a panacea.
- Dan Johnson - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 12:40 pm:
I love me some ranked choice voting or as I call it in my blatant pandering: Irish-style ballots.
Fun fact: Springfield voters currently use a ranked ballot if they are overseas and casting an absentee ballot. (Because 35 days between the February and April elections is not enough time to get a ballot back and forth).
- DuPage Bard - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 12:44 pm:
Is this another millennial crying and waving the Fair flag? It’s not fair that the people I want to be elected officials are really good and they should be because it’s not fair if they aren’t and that’s who I want.
- C Ball - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 12:46 pm:
To be fair, he was asked why he was active in FairVote and was explaining why he wanted electoral reform. He wasn’t advocating cynicism. He’s advocating for ranked-choice voting.
- Swampy Corn - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 12:50 pm:
Part of me loves the idea of a ranked ballot. Might make candidates be nicer (not going to vote 2nd for someone who bashed your person) and election day should feel like Christmas, hangover and all for one shot to win it all.
But the political theater over the next few weeks should be amazing to behold as endorsements from losing candidates are won and lost.
- Actual Red - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 1:14 pm:
The main draw of ranked choice, for me at least, is that it can help widen the possibilities for who can viably run for office, by limiting the extent to which candidates play spoiler.
If everyone who votes Green party (for example) can put a Dem as their second choice, more people can consider Green candidates without worrying that their vote would contribute to a Republican victory. This could make alternative political perspectives more electorally viable, increasing the options available to voters. That’s a good thing.
Personally, I don’t like it as much as some kind of party list proportional system, but I think it could be an improvement over FPTP
- JL - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 1:22 pm:
Are these the same people who threw fake dollar bills from the gallery of the general assembly shouting “get money out of politics” and expected the reps on the floor to grab at the money?
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 1:57 pm:
Lightfoot had some access to money being a partner at Mayer Brown. She stayed solid during campaign with no gaffes or scandals and used the money well at the end on TV. She seemed to have a lot of GOTV through volunteers or maybe otherwise. There were a lot of supporters downtown passing lit for her.
- d. p. gumby - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 2:01 pm:
In Ward 49 Maria Hadden clobbered Joe Moore, who outspent her substantially.
- City Guy - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 3:13 pm:
The Rickett’s money didn’t win the 44th ward.
- Amalia - Thursday, Feb 28, 19 @ 3:34 pm:
and when the candidate who more people put in first place does not win the race, there’s another whole set of cynics who come out. rank indeed.