Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Let’s be careful out there
Next Post: It’s time for some answers
Posted in:
* Jim Dey…
Here’s a stunning statistic that is the norm in Illinois politics.
Independent Maps reports that seven of 10 legislative elections on the fall ballot will have only one candidate.
* After giving it much thought, I think remap reform will probably have more of an impact on primary ballots than in the general.
I mean, think about it. Does it really matter if Republicans run against Democrats in Chicago or the south suburbs? How about if Democrats challenge Republicans in Iroquois County, or the counties around Effingham - where Obama lost to Alan Keyes? Western DuPage, anyone?
People in this state tend to live near others who share their views, or they adopt the views of those around them (not quite sure which is which). Either way, we have huge geographic blocs in Illinois which overwhelmingly favor one party over the other, so all the remap reform in the world probably won’t change that, except occasional one-off results that might happen anyway.
So the biggest impact could be on incumbents who can’t protect themselves from primary opponents by drawing them out or packing in all their friendly (to them) territory.
* But, yes, I can certainly see how some areas would be more in play with remap reform. Sen. Andy Manar’s Democratic-leaning district might not be possible under the Independent Maps proposal, particularly its “respect geographic boundaries” mandate. The Peoria area could get more interesting. The Democrats’ hold on a single, mostly DuPage County district might not be possible, either. And the GOPs might have a much better shot at picking up some suburban Cook seats and maybe some spots in southern Illinois.
On the other hand, recent off-year statewide elections (2010 and 2014) clearly showed that Republican candidates can win majorities in Democratic districts (Bill Brady and Bruce Rauner won the majority of House and Senate districts both times).
* I strongly favor remap reform. Politicians shouldn’t pick their voters.
But I don’t believe it’s a be-all, end-all solution. We ought to do it because it’s one of many things we can accomplish to make things more small “d” democratic here. If it were up to me, I’d take away the chamber leaders’ strangleholds on committee chairmanships and staff. Elect the chairs and minority spokespersons within their caucuses and make the staff answerable to them and not the leaders. Some would also give voters much more say in policymaking. I think I’d be open to some of that.
That being said, I think many of the critiques of the Independent Maps’ proposal are valid. This thing would likely reduce Chicago’s influence. You might think that’s a positive development. Heck, I might even agree on some levels. But it’s probably gonna happen if this passes.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 9, 16 @ 10:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Let’s be careful out there
Next Post: It’s time for some answers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I don’t believe that recent off-year statewide elections (2010 and 2014) are a good example of Republican vs. Democrats. It is a better example of people just did not want to vote for Quinn.
Comment by Rufus Monday, May 9, 16 @ 11:06 am
I think the better question is, will it make Chicago’s influence more proportional? or will it help balance influence proportionally across the State?
I’m not that big of a fan of the Fair Map as I don’t think it goes far enough to protect independents & other political parties, but it’s a lot better than what we have and I”m supporting it.
Comment by Ahoy! Monday, May 9, 16 @ 11:28 am
The point of the exercise is not necessarily to get a Democrat elected in a “Republican area,” or a Republican in a “Democratic area.” It’s much more about ensuring the temperament of the people elected match the overall temperament of the regions they supposedly represent, and ensuring the interests of a particular region are fairly represented in the General Assembly. If a community is heavily populated with partisan firebrands, they are free to elect a partisan firebrand who will go to war against the evils of the other side. However, I and others suspect if the districts were drawn based on geography and population, and not the political tendencies of a particular district, the candidates seeking office on both sides would need to mind themselves, lest they stray too far right or left, and mind how much of their autonomy they yield to legislative leaders from their parties. As to your post, doesn’t it seem strange that a conservative Democrat, who is Democratic only, say, because of a support for unions, can’t win in a downstate county? Or that Mark Kirk-style Republicans can’t win seats in suburban Cook County? I submit they could, if the hearts of their districts weren’t carved up in ways that allow their presumed bases of support to be diluted when connected to other communities and neighborhoods that feature large numbers of particular partisans.
Comment by JB13 Monday, May 9, 16 @ 11:45 am
Having an Open Primary in association with some sort of fair mapping would, in the long run, help create more competitive races.
Comment by Anon221 Monday, May 9, 16 @ 11:51 am
Sid Mathias might still be in the House if it weren’t for skillful gerrymandering.
Comment by anon Monday, May 9, 16 @ 11:56 am
Posts and comments like these make me wonder if a “top-two” primary (e.g., as in California and Washington) would be a better reform.
Comment by Cromulent M. Biggens Monday, May 9, 16 @ 11:56 am
Combined with independent maps, i’d like to see if a top three primary would pull candidates to the center and result in more moderates elected / more functional government.
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, May 9, 16 @ 1:50 pm
You got it Rich. Competitive Impact would be more about primary challenges than switching a big number of seats between parties. A few yes. Other factors loom larger in the general.
Also favor this reform.
Comment by walker Monday, May 9, 16 @ 1:51 pm
It is simply too hard to get on the ballot….
Comment by outsider Monday, May 9, 16 @ 2:00 pm
That might not work after all…
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, May 9, 16 @ 2:05 pm
At least Jim Dey admits most of this is mumbo jumbo
What would be better if Jim Dey or the 1%ers who have coopted the go-gos on this one would tell us what they think will happen in IL after all this change takes place…smarter kids, more jobs, just offer a vision. No one ever gets around to it. Very disappointing.
Comment by Annonin' Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:39 pm
====would tell us what they think will happen in IL after all this change takes place…smarter kids, more jobs, just offer a vision===
I did: A better democracy.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:47 pm
Some of you expressed an interest in an open, top-two primary to go along with independent maps. I filed HB2719 last year and a similar bill in the 98th GA. It would provide for a top-two primary system based on the California model.
Comment by State Rep Mike Fortner Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:26 pm
Kudos, Rep. Fortner. I’d be fine with an open, top-two primary with or without independent maps. But both would be fine, too!
Comment by Cromulent M. Biggens Monday, May 9, 16 @ 6:56 pm