26 Comments - Wow - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:16 am: A very small minority of Illinois residents truly care about the map process. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:30 am: The abandonment in suburban Chicagoland by Republicans that can win in moderate leaning areas or have a “native son/daughter” that can go beyond party affiliation and can win with a map maybe deemed impossible for anyone other than they… The Republicans… Raunerites/Trumpkins… they have forgotten that recruitment must mirror the opportunities the map offers, and have a viable campaign for those mirrored candidates. You have far too many “unopposed” suburban seats or worse candidates that you look at a district you “see” how they don’t mirror anything, but hope on scaring (crime) or anger as the winning formula. I’ve said now for a while; Reset, Regroup, Recruit. Until the Raunerite Trumpkins start doing those three things to become actual Republicans again… map or no map… what the Raunerite/Trumpkins are offering… folks aren’t voting that way. - lake county democrat - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:31 am: The “healthy for democracy” question has another aspect: does gerrymandering polarize districts, diminishing the number of centrists and increasing the number of extreme ideologues. I think the answer to that question is apparent both at the state and federal level. - Quibbler - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:33 am: The question has an entirely fair premise which Republicans completely disregard in every state where they have power. Hence, Democrats should be equally free to disregard it in Illinois. No unilateral disarmament. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:33 am: === federal level=== (Sigh) Tell me about Casten, Underwood, Schneider, Foster, and Krishnamoorthi You telling me “the map” allows these five to either get a full on pass or the best type of candidate to beat in those districts. You can choose. - JB13 - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:41 am: If the map doesn’t matter in Illinois, then Democrats should just release control of it, and prove their point. The screeching nationally by Democrats about *Republican* gerrymandering undermines the local shoulder shrugging. Pick a lane, please. *That said*… If Republicans believe they can run Trumpers in the suburbs and win, they will be relegated to superminority status for the foreseeable future. - Suburbs - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:47 am: The GOP needs to look around to seek help. Fiscally sound and socially reasonable suburban female candidates will be a huge help to the GOP. As a party of freedom, please stop being anti gay. The life issue is separate but don’t only recruit pro lifers. Mark Kirk, Beth Coulson and others did well in the suburbs. The GOP has the middle aged white guy vote…time to expand your horizons! - Jeff Schoenberg - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:50 am: === federal level=== Hard to apply any of these reformist arguments to the congressional map when it was jointly negotiated and jointly agreed to by the entire delegation serving @ the time, D’s and R’s alike. The General Assembly voted overwhelmingly w/little if any opposition to give everyone what they asked for. - SAP - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:50 am: If you are Harmon, don’t you just say “We field better candidates.” and move on. - Techie - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:02 pm: If we really want the senate to reflect the will of voters, why not make it a proportionally representative body? We already have house seats to represent people geographically. By electing senators via proportional representation, voters choose a party to support. Then senate seats are allocated to each party in proportion to their share of the vote. This would provide one chamber of the legislature to represent people geographically, and another chamber to represent them ideologically. No need to mess with senate district boundaries at that point, just concern ourselves with house district boundaries. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:05 pm: === If we really want the senate to reflect the will of voters, why not make it a proportionally representative body? We already have house seats to represent people geographically. By electing senators via proportional representation, voters choose a party to support. Then senate seats are allocated to each party in proportion to their share of the vote.=== Gotta find 71 and 36 === No need to mess with senate district boundaries at that point=== Except by the way it’s written in the constitution - West Sider - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:09 pm: —-“We field better candidates.”—- Well, of course he does. But the Senate Dems also focus on services for their constituents. When I was a wee nipper- DuPage (along with Orange Co. Cal.) was the center of the Republican universe. It’s all gone for them now (and it ain’t coming back)– because politics is a service business. That’s what Harmon knows- that’s what he delivers. - Can - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:09 pm: Techie @12:02 beat me to it. It would require a constitutional change, like OW says, but I wonder if the GOP would be interested in the “leveling seats” concept in some European Parliaments. Interesting to debate, but nothing that will change anytime soon. - Techie - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:10 pm: @Oswego Willy You’re absolutely right that this would require a change in the state constitution and would also thereby require enough lawmakers to amend it. But if we’re concerned about the most fair way to hold elections, this seems like it would be at or near the top of the list. Unlike individual districts with single winners, a proportional system more accurately captures the will of the people, in part by giving third parties a real seat at the table. And that, among other reasons, is why it probably won’t happen anytime soon, if ever. - Frank talks - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:19 pm: I tell you even when talking maps- no respect no respect - The Captain - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:21 pm: Let’s look at state house districts which give a bit better data since the entire chamber is on the ballot every two years. One possibility is that Democrats have drawn a map the excessively maximizes their performance. The other possibility is that legislative Republicans underperform their potential. The data can send mixed signals from cycle to cycle but there’s strong evidence to suggest the latter is a key factor. For example, if you look at the Republican wave election of 2014, Bruce Rauner beat Pat Quinn statewide by about 4 points and he got more votes than Pat Quinn in 69 House districts, but the House Republicans only elected 47 members that year. In that same election Tom Cross lost to Mike Frerichs by about a quarter of a point, Cross got more votes than Frerichs in 64 House districts but the House Republicans only elected 47 members that year. Looking under the hood that year, in 2014 there were four districts that were won by Democratic House members where Rauner beat Quinn by 30+ points (Franks, Costello, Bradley & Phelps), three of those incumbent Democratic House members (Costello, Bradley & Phelps) ran unopposed. All four districts are now represented by a Republican, those Democrats either lost outright or moved on and their successors did. Over in the Senate it’s tougher to make progress because many districts aren’t on the ballot each year, but the Senate Republicans have still made it hard on themselves with poor recruitment. In many of those years the Senate Democrats ensured their majority not in November when the votes were counted but in June when the final candidate filing deadline passed and the Republicans hadn’t even recruited enough candidates to possibly retake the majority. It wouldn’t have been easy for the Republicans to win many of those races but they had no chance of winning them when they weren’t contesting them. Cycles vary but there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that legislative Republicans have been underperforming their potential and the map gets blamed at a level far greater than its actual effect on those outcomes. That isn’t to suggest the map is perfect, it’s not it was drawn by partisans, but the map has been given almost mythological power and in many cases it’s simply a scapegoat for those who don’t want to acknowledge their own underperformance. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:24 pm: The map matters in swing districts. Outside Cook and the collar counties it doesn’t matter much when most candidates are running unopposed. The numbers do not lie and the map belongs to those in power. I doubt the GOP is complaining about the map in Mississippi. - Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:42 pm: =The screeching nationally by Democrats about *Republican* gerrymandering undermines the local shoulder shrugging= Bullcrap. I’ll screech - btw, nice word, I’m sure you were thinking of women when you used it - about Republican gerrymandering until the cows come home and shrug it off locally. Why? Because Republicans controlled the redistricting process in way more states in 2011 and will do so in 2021, resulting in a lot more gerrymandered Republican seats. When the Republicans agree to disarm, I’ll be fine with Illinois doing it. But not a moment before. - lake county democrat - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 1:04 pm: Did I say gerrymandering leads to non-centrists in each and every district? Or did I say “diminishing” the number of centrists? - Julie - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 2:07 pm: The simple answer is Donald Trump. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 2:14 pm: === The simple answer is Donald Trump.=== “Would that it were so simple” - trippingly No. Rauner himself became so toxic, he had no constituency, there was no Raunerite ticket, Rauner himself looked to be removed, tried to quit. The House, the Senate, the extremists, the likes of a Breen or Naperville now having two Democratic statehouse legislators… It was Ives, it was Oberweis… both with their own brands. While moving away from Trumpkin thinking, Q believing, and eradicating racists, insurrectionists and conspiracy theorists is the main thing, it’s locals mirroring districts that matter. Rauner exacerbated things by getting rid of those who mirrored for those who obeyed. It’s a local thing, it’s an Illinois thing. - Dance Band on the Titanic - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 2:23 pm: Senate 25 is indicative of the uphill fight the ILGOP faces in the suburbs. The party had a moderate candidate in Beth Goncher who probably would have won in the general but she got smoked in the primary by hard core Trumpster Jeanette Ward. As long as the GOP primaries keep producing candidates like Ward who are way out of touch with their potential constituents, they will continue to fail to find the foothold to rebuild in the suburbs. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 2:25 pm: === As long as the GOP primaries keep producing candidates like Ward who are way out of touch with their potential constituents, they will continue to fail to find the foothold to rebuild in the suburbs.=== Ballgame. Both caucuses need to grasp an identity that allows a mirroring to districts without losing what makes unity in a big tent party important. - ZC - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 2:40 pm: It’s a little surprising to me still, the extent to which when national pundits talk about IL and how Democratic it is relative to its midwestern neighbors, they talk about gerrymandering and don’t talk more about the “Latinx” factor. It’s huge. IL is also slightly more white-college-educated than some of its neighbors, and given current national partisan trends, that’s a 1-2 punch that is hard for Republicans here to overcome. IL GOP seriously have to build their brand / candidates / recruiting among Latinos. I know some of them are trying. They need to try harder. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 2:44 pm: === recruiting among Latinos.=== Between 30, and as high as ~38% vote Trump. Are they “Republicans” or more focused on Trumpian things, not Main Street things? I don’t have the answer to any of that, but recruiting persons of color and expanding the tent and playing field has to mean figuring out districts and candidates that can make them competitive if not winnable. - Cosgrove - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 3:15 pm: Many of the suburban Republicans over the past several decades until 2016 who used to win were pro-choice and not today’s right-wing crazies–Lindner, Cross, Coulson, Mathias, Mulligan, Hatcher, Hughes, Parcells, Frederick, Krause, Moore, Wood are just a few examples. Now nearly all of these districts are held by pro-choice Democrats who defeated the make abortion illegal Republicans. Could there be a connection? McConchie and Durkin are no doubt looking to out crazy their current crop in 2022. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.