|
Malicious or just plain stupid?
Wednesday, Nov 12, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
OK, first of all, I was on the conference call when the spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections Commissioners talked to reporters about the robocalls. He never said that 2,000 judges didn’t show up because of the calls. He said that, typically “more than a thousand” judges don’t show up on election day and stressed that the board wouldn’t know who the no-shows were and how many didn’t show up until pay slips were processed. * Mark Brown…
Either way, the “2,000 judges didn’t show up because of robocalls” line is false. Period. At the time, the city board spokesman was simply passing along what he was hearing from the judges, many of whom were extremely upset and some of whom had quit. But he went out of his way not to say which party may have been targeted. * He also said that the calls could’ve been mere “incompetence.” Here is the transcript for two of the calls…
According to the board spokesman on election day, some judges thought the city should pay them for the extra training and quit. People don’t often hear details too well on the phone, especially with calls like these. Back in my youthful telemarketing days (Amoco Motor Club), part of our training involved telling us that people don’t usually pick up on the first few words when they answer their phones. So I can understand how some thought this was an official training, and I can understand why the bad addresses made people even more suspect. * And what about the calls telling judges they had to vote a straight GOP ticket? That didn’t really happen, either. Parilli was urging judges to vote early, just in case they were assigned to a precinct which wasn’t their own. During another robocall, he said judges are “required to participate in voting to be an election judge.” If “participate in voting” means registering to vote, I suppose that’s true. Otherwise, no. And Parilli went on to say this during one call…
From a partisan rah-rah standpoint, I can see where he’s coming from. But there is no actual requirement. * OK, back to Brown…
Ironically enough, Meroni is a crusader against “vote fraud”.
|
|
Looking out for my own interests, as well as Illinois’
Wednesday, Nov 12, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller * The Change Illinois coalition looked at what happens in the first legislative election after a new district map is enacted into law… ![]() Look at the number for competitive races, which are defined as losing candidates who received at least 45 percent of the vote. And, really, it ain’t very “competitive” if somebody gets beat by nine points. I’ve long said that the remapping process is broken. Most people agree. It has to be changed. This is unhealthy for a democracy. And, speaking frankly, it’s also not good for my business model. I need more races to cover, not fewer. Other factors play into this, of course. Why didn’t the Republicans field and fund serious challengers to Lisa Madigan, Jesse White and all countywide Democrats in Cook? Because 1) it would be a waste of money, but more importantly 2) it would prompt those incumbents to spend big bucks on their reelection and that could hurt the Republicans. Same goes for legislative contests. Typically, the House Dems won’t unnecessarily back a sure-loser if it would hurt a Dem Senator, for example. And there is no way that all, or even nearly all districts in this state can be drawn so they’re competitive. Parties are clustered. You can’t draw a GOP district on the South Side of Chicago, for instance. You can’t draw a Democratic district using McLean County as its base. If that could’ve been done, the Democrats woulda tried the last time around. Overall, though, we have a very serious problem with how the maps are drawn. * Democrats haven’t wanted to change the system because they benefited from it in 2011, when they had a Democratic governor. If Bruce Rauner wins two terms, however, they only have a 50-50 chance of controlling the map process (unless they can work out a compromise, which probably can’t happen). The Democrats should look at another part of that chart - seats gained after a remap - and start thinking really hard about their party’s legislative future. They’re on top of the world now, and they may end up picking up even more seats in 2016, but their grip on power could be seriously diminished and possibly even gone with a Republican map drawn to be as partisan as the current one. They would likely be better off with a neutral map. And so would Illinois. …And so would I.
|
|
Question of the day
Wednesday, Nov 12, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller * What one word best describes your post-election mood? One word only, please. And, of course, keep it clean.
|
| « NEWER POSTS | PREVIOUS POSTS » |








