Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Closing The Prairie State Coal Plant Protects Clean Air, Consumers, And The Climate
Next Post: The broadband divide in Illinois
Posted in:
* There are two schools of thought on this. One is that competitive races are good because they give people actual choices and increase overall turnout. The other, more dominant one in Illinois, is that this is a bad idea because fielding candidates in uncompetitive districts can backfire by driving up turnout for the other side as the dominant party expends energy and resources to crush the opposition.
The libertarian-leaning Illinois Policy Institute will be trying its hand at candidate recruitment this summer and fall, sending out at minimum tens of thousands of postcards to households the organization identifies as “high propensity voters” who also align with the think tank on issues of “economic freedom,” seeking out those who may be interested in running for office.
Illinois Policy’s outreach drive — a pilot for a possible more robust candidate training program in the future — is being launched in tandem with a new paper from three staff researchers at the organization. The paper argues that because Illinois’ legislative and congressional district maps are drawn with a low degree of competitiveness, incumbents go uncontested because a House or Senate district is all but guaranteed to a Republican or Democrat, leading to lower voter turnout.
The researchers estimated that uncontested races translated to 1.7 million “missing votes” since 2012 — the first election cycle under the state’s current legislative and congressional maps, or an average of 334,000 votes per election year, though presidential election cycles yield higher voter turnout.
“Roughly half of all Illinois House races were uncontested on average,” the paper argues. “That means that many voters were denied the opportunity to support a candidate who is more closely aligned with their own preferences.”
Go read the rest. Interesting piece.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 9:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Closing The Prairie State Coal Plant Protects Clean Air, Consumers, And The Climate
Next Post: The broadband divide in Illinois
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Shocked, shocked I’d say about this openly partisan political move.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 9:29 am
The question on how turnout is affected is definitely interesting. They cite a couple other papers in this. Though Illinois can often be an exception…
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/competitive-elections-raise-voter-participation-uncontested-elections-hinder-democracy/
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 9:31 am
First;
If you are not, at the very least… checking out Hannah’s twitter you are missing out, including tweets that link to her incredible work.
To the post, Hannah goes pretty deep into the weeds, which I can’t get enough of on this. IPI will be “challenged” on their exempt status, and even parading and peddling this as bipartisan to go “after” southern regional districts, brining Dems into the discussion, it’s a false flag as policy won’t align.
The recruiting, mailing, educating, the premise is, as they try to sell, “it’s for everyone”, the fact will be, magically, it’ll be Republican primaries, Proft type shenanigans, and a real rift to take Durkin and McConchie out of the mix, all the while making Dems weary of not only their own primaries which might include IPI sympathizers like, say, Mike Frerichs as Treasurer, and force upon the Dem primaries an undercurrent that splinters Dem agenda thoughts.
Who IPI is?
They are garden variety grifters who use alleged anger and “logic” that befuddles the honesty to the actual task.
Their dishonest marketing to intent is comedic, but will be be called out as dishonest?
IPI, in short, wants its own party, own candidates, own agenda, using their *own* funding disguised as a non-partisan actor while their own political party is a parasite on the two existing parties.
Two things really interest me?
* Those who will take IPI up in this, meaning the direct people, the actual people and their backgrounds and such.
* Will anyone dare to question the legality to status as an entity to this new “mission”? Will this now be ignored or discarded as the rules are themselves ignored and discarded too?
What is comically pathetic is… the mere weeks IPI folks were able to handle actually governing for Bruce Rauner.
Worse resume ever; IPI and Bruce Rauner
These “educators” to campaigns and governing couldn’t last weeks in governing, and IPI as a political entity isn’t know for building a long-standing stable of winning candidates.
If IPI wants to play as a parasite political party… that’s on-brand… and should be a cautionary tale for real legitimate candidates. Let’s see who falls for this silliness, dangerous as it is to the dishonesty.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 9:45 am
Awesome. Bring on anti-unionism, anti-government/austerity, anti-tax, etc. The ILGOP doesn’t have enough problems winning elections.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 9:46 am
Worse resume ever?
Your outrage is noted.
How many Illinois Democrats are under indictment currently for being grifters?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 9:53 am
First “libertarian-leaning” ok I suppose in that they are anti-government but they’ve backed right wing candidates and policies.
Second, new outlets need to consider this is an openly a political organization and take that into account before giving them a platform as experts or opinionators on tv and radio. Just because they are desperate for guests and hot takes doesn’t mean they should be aiding the grift.
Comment by Sonny Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:00 am
Careful what you wish for.
We had some folks run against an incumbent who was going impossible to beat, she even had support from some local GOP folks who just liked her.
One Candidate
- Didn’t understand why she couldn’t circulate her petitions at Wall-Mart and complained when they told her to stop.
- When she asked our org for a donation and we voted to give it to her committee didn’t have one and didn’t understand why she needed one.
- Had a response to a questionnaire from the local paper that was one for the ages.
People spent time (and money) trying to get her elected, she lost by 3-1, every dollar of that investment could have been spent someplace else even a little more efficiently.
Congratulations IPI you are going to attract gadflys.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:05 am
“libertarian-leaning”? That must mean that they physically lean against libertarians for ballast.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:16 am
While the idea behind their research is interesting, this paper is either intentionally misleading or somewhat sloppy in its conclusions.
Votes cast is different from voter turnout/participation. This paper tracks votes cast (at least according to its Appendix section) at a congressional and state legislative level but uses those numbers interchangeably with voter turnout. Votes cast is the number of people who voted on a particular race. Voter turnout is how many people came out to vote in that election. There is almost always going to be fewer votes cast on down-ballot races that there are people who showed up to the polls in any election. This is dropoff and it’s a real problem on down ballot races.
This paper is problematic because its confusing the two. It could easily have talked about how a lack of competitive races down ballot influences higher dropoff, which is problematic because it means fewer people are deciding who the members of congress, state senate & house are. That, itself, could be argued is a form of suppression but they aren’t making that argument. But, this paper equates a lack of candidates with a lack of voter turnout. That’s incorrect.
If they wanted to make their argument, the supporting evidence they would have needed would be total turnout, ie how many actual ballots were cast. A simpler way of explaining it is that it is highly likely that the total number of presidential or gubernatorial votes in these “uncompetitive” districts is more in line with “competitive” districts across the state. However, that data isn’t provided so we don’t know for sure.
I think its an interesting concept for a paper and there is certainly a debate about whether down ballot races encourage total turnout, however this paper fails in that it uses the wrong data to make its point.
Comment by Suburban Guy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:26 am
=== Worse resume ever?
Your outrage is noted.===
They lasted… weeks… had a governor in a release “say”… “as a white male”… legislative failures… these “Superstars” slinked away… or were fired, embarrassing all involved… I mean, geez, Louise, Diana Rickert had the embarrassing gall, after writing such a press release, to pen an Op-Ed which wholly ignored her own limited time, and the actual why she was no longer *in* state government.
So… yeah… if those Diana Rauner brought in from IPI were the “best” to change course, they changed course all right, for the measurable worst… and being part of both IPI and Rauner’s administration is arguably the worse resume ever… to the honesty and professionalism of governing.
If the IPI folks were even remotely adequate to help Rauner destroy Illinois he and Diana woulda kept em. The IPI folks failed at that too.
And now IPI wants to be a parasite political party?
“Ok”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:27 am
=== If they wanted to make their argument, the supporting evidence they would have needed would be total turnout, ie how many actual ballots were cast. A simpler way of explaining it is that it is highly likely that the total number of presidential or gubernatorial votes in these “uncompetitive” districts is more in line with “competitive” districts across the state. However, that data isn’t provided so we don’t know for sure.===
It’s about the grift, not about honesty to whatever phony purpose they want accomplished.
Once you embrace that truth, the rest makes sense.
With respect, and truthfully to your comment, I appreciate your thoughtfulness to what is (it could’ve been) a true study in your thoughts, as it’s being served with other intent(s)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:30 am
So your argument is that the IPI and the Rauner administration is more dishonest than the numerous Democrats actually indicted by the Federal government
The Feds seem to have a much different view on the professionalism of governing.
Don’t miss the jury duty summons in your mailbox OW, you are exactly who they are hoping for
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:35 am
as the dominant party expends energy and resources
There is a limited supply of both. So, if a party has to expend in what would have been a “safe” seat, doesn’t that by default make other races even slightly more competitive?
That is, if I spend x in a hopeless slot, and you spent 3x to beat me, that’s 2x that isn’t available to you elsewhere.
Comment by Fav Human Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:46 am
===So your argument is…===
It’s not. You know it’s not. Your bot programming defaults to this…
=== more dishonest than===
… which only works if you already embrace that, (which I never said here or ever) Rauner’s administration and IPI are criminally dishonest, by…
===actually indicted by the Federal government===
The thing is - Lucky Pierre -…. the *thing* is… if you aren’t dishonestly trying to change narratives to “Dems bad no matter what the subject”, what exactly are you trying to say to change *any* minds with honesty or facts.
If anything, your feeble retort is a reminder;
The default programming for a man who wanted to quit running for governor… is outdated.
So, in short, you didn’t respond to anything I typed, no matter what your programming says.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:50 am
““Anyone running for office is free to use [Illinois Policy’s research] in points that they want to communicate, so long as they’re being truthful,” Berg said.”"
Catch 22
Comment by walker Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:51 am
IPI seemingly doesn’t have the scratch to fix the broken fence in front of their headquarters in Springfield. The orange plastic mesh is unsightly and has been there a couple of years.
Comment by IllinoisBoi Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:51 am
==Votes cast is different from voter turnout/participation…This paper is problematic because its confusing the two.==
@SuburbanGuy
I think that’s a fair point, but I think its only the NPR piece that’s confusing the two, not the original IPI paper. The article doesn’t say broader “voter turnout” is down in uncontested districts, it says “participation” which means not only turnout but actually casting a ballot for a particular race.
And where they talk about “missing votes” they specify that it means House races, not all votes.
Comment by Political Animal Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:53 am
=== And where they talk about “missing votes” they specify that it means House races, not all votes.===
Did you write the paper or part of it’s creation?
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 10:56 am
From where I sit, the House Democrats love this idea. House Republicans not so much.
Comment by Another Perspective Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 11:56 am
@Political Animal
I didn’t read the NPR piece, I just read IPI’s paper. In it, their second graph is titled “Illinois House districts with multiple candidates see higher voter turnout than districts with one candidate.”
Furthermore, their conclusion states, “Maximizing the number of candidates with clearly differentiated policy preferences on the ballot, particularly in areas that have historically had just one option, would drive up voter participation while also ensuring that participation includes real choice.”
Finally, their Appendix states “Voter turnout is defined as the number of votes for House of Representatives divided by the number of voting-age Illinoisans.”
So, again, they interchange the two. Hence, my original point that their paper was either intentionally misleading or sloppy in its conclusions.
Comment by Suburban Guy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 12:01 pm
===either intentionally misleading or===
Taking into consideration who IPI actually is… the “or” is a nice courtesy.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 12:16 pm
But the bottom line for IPI and Republicans generally is they can’t win with their candidates and policies in the races that matter, or in the Chicagoland area. There was a Republican who ran as a Dem in Cook County to get elected as a judge because there wasn’t ONE Republican running. (Source: Jack Leyhane’s “For What It’s Worth Blog”, 2020) All the little victories aren’t adding up to anything near a Republican tipping point, and they’re flailing now with the equivalent of a walk-on casting call for a major motion picture, because no Tier 1 or 2 actors want any part of the movie. IPI needs to start studying Indiana’s Republican Party instead of mass-mailing invites to run.
Comment by thisjustinagain Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 12:17 pm
I hate to say it, but you have to give the IPI credit. They’ve built a pretty substantial digital operation — from spreading their own (ahem) “news” content, to developing a social media presence, to building voter files. They’ve even succeeded in fooling the mainstream media into treating them like they’re a quasi-independent public policy voice.
Between JB’s cash and the resources organized labor has, you’d think there would be a liberal counter weight in the state to the IPI, but there’s not. And it has consequences. The miserable performance of the “fair tax” amendment can be pinned, in part, on the left’s failure to compete digitally.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 12:19 pm
If they want hire turnout, they should support mailing a ballot to every single voter.
Comment by Shield Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 12:24 pm
higher*
Comment by Shield Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 12:24 pm
===Taking into consideration who IPI actually is… the “or” is a nice courtesy.===
Channeling Mr. JM I see.
Restaurant quality. That was funny.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 1:06 pm
Who are the Rauner people working at IPI?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 1:11 pm
- Da Big Bad Wolf -
Thank you. Wish I had his pithy style and wit. Any comparison, much appreciated.
Be well.
To the post,
The downstate “Dem” idea of “choice” with IPI supplying the choice… will Dems realize what it will mean (good, bad, motivational, financial) come General Election time and the IPI Party leeching off the Dem brand could mean… trouble?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 1:16 pm
“That means that many voters were denied the opportunity to support a candidate”
Hmm, how does the IPI feel about voting laws Republicans are currently enacting at the state level?
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 1:18 pm
“liberterian leaning” wow that must have the IPI staffer wet themselves Normal description is dark money lobby group that thirst to crush worker rights and cut revenues to starve lawful programs. Proud winner of the Koch Brothers Silver Dog Whistle Awards for 4 straight years.
Once again we are left to wonder what IL looks like after the IPI competitive races are over. Somebody run over to the GLobe and get a quick response from Mr. T.
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 3:10 pm
IPI and Tillman represent the Rich straightout, conning the other 99% to carry the water their rich patrons. Bailey and his ilk represent the “We hate government revenuers, and commie socialists” country bumpkin branch of the party. But since they need money to run their hate campaigns, they work for the rich, and against the interests of the chumps that love the hate they spew”. Neither has much of a chance in Illinois nowadays.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 3:46 pm
Sorry, but the argument that people didn’t vote because they didn’t have a candidate to vote for in a race for either house of the legislature is absolutely ridiculous.
People will stay home because they don’t like candidates for President or maybe US Senate, not these lower level races.
Comment by low level Thursday, Jul 8, 21 @ 4:30 pm