Got Democracy?
141 votes were cast in answer to the poll question "Should there be free and open competition in local Democratic primary elections?" The results are:
Yes, the public should be exposed to all qualified candidates and be able to choose their candidate democratically. - 119 votes or 79.9%
No, party discipline is too important to leave candidate choice up to the people of the district. State party leaders have the right to support only incumbants and to exclude and work against interetsted challengers. - 30 votes or 20.1%
Despite politicians being all for the elimination of competition and free choice, people still prefer a democratic process by a margin of 8 to 2. That's good to see.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 8/15/2005
26 comments
26 Comments:
Imagine that! those ceazy founding fathers thought that our represenatives should stand for election. they made very few provisions for appointed positions,Supreme Court, the executive cabinet, ambassadors.
But not state legislators!!
It was left up to the state of course but the state's went for elections also. Wow most Americans beleive in free elections and not the art of war drivle that the Headrusher keeps talking about.
Head Usher - as Diehard has said many times - you and Mike Jacobs (albeit one in the same) have made it impossible for an average guy with good intentions to run against you for office. Pat Verschoore has done the same.
Unless you agree to only spend the same money as a less funded candidate the odds are so stacked in the favor of the guy appointed to the free ride the rest of us can only sit back and get disgusted.
You are quite disgusting too I may add -- and the majority of folks other than Maybesomeday and Diehard are also feeling the same. There are many anon who are posting and saying they don't like what Mike Jacobs and Pat Vershoore have done with the help of the Pope of Democrats in RI - John Gianulis. He's going for a longer record than John Paul II so we may have to wait and wait and wait.......
I think primary elections are one of the biggest problems in the democratic process. That's how John McCain got squeezed out from under George Bush. There need to be open primaries because I think it's safe to say George W. doesn't necessarily fall along most Republicans' agendas (he's even further to the right than some would prefer), but yet we were forced to vote for him regardless. We need to lose the primaries, or at least make them open across party lines.
17:46,
How old are you? Do you really think thats the way the world works? Maybe in pre-school!
Diehard --
Ahern isn't running against Boland.
He's just taking advantage of free publicity in case Boland doesn't run. He's just being a good opportunist, but he won't run against Boland.
Perhaps the biggest loser in this new deal between Madigan-Boland-Jacobs is McNeil. He had quietly lined up support throughout the district and the state. He could have led a united Democratic Party effort in the 71st. But his former boss -- Speaker Madigan -- came in and nailed the door shut on Mr. McNeil. Ouch. Politics isn't fair, that's for sure.
Amen Anon.... It really is a damned shame about McNeil. When you think of how long he's labored for the party and went about quietly trying to line up the support he'd need to run, it's really a damn shame things went down this way.
McNeil has been poised for a run for a long time now, and has gotten passed up for various reasons time after time after time.
It's a true shame that without his former boss's support, that an independent run by McNeil would be an uphill climb.
I think that Ahern's campaign, and a McNeil campaign, if it was to materialize, would draw a hell of a lot of committed support.... a level of support that might just shock the hell out of the old boy network.
HeadUsher, my dear boy.
Your argument that one has to run for public office themselves before they have a right to criticize those in office is, well, hilarious.
It's stupid, as I'm sure even you realize if you stop to think about it.
And if someone decides to go into politics and happens to get appointed to office, they better not get all prickly and bithcy when they come in for some criticism.
Attacking your critics simply because they're critics is a pretty dumb strategy.
A wise man realizes that within the criticism they receive is usually a grain or two of truth.
A foolish person dismisses the critics or attacks them and attempts to hide behind a cocky bravado based on nothing.
Jacobs is no dummy. He's young, very personable, and has a lot of what it takes to be a good politician.
But humble he ain't. And in light of how he came to office and how he's avoided even a challenge for his seat, his cockiness doesn't sit well with many people.
What Jacobs should be is humble, acknowledging that he's incredibly fortunate to have been placed in such a lofty position without having to run for it, and humble and grateful that the way things turned out, he won't have a challenger in the primary.
He should acknowledge that he knows that he got his position in an untraditional way and that he's humble and grateful to be able to serve the public.
Hell, most of us here would likely support him 100% if he simply quietly and diligently did his level best to do good for the most people in the distict possible. (even doing things for the general good every once in a while, not just things that benefit individuals, companies, or industries, or that ensure a pile of money in donations.)
The future is a blank slate which Jacobs can create whatever sort of legacy he wants.
And people will be with him 100% if he proves to be something other than a business as usual blowhard pol.
Yes Dope you are right. And how about Pat O'Brien who was locked out any chance of running in the 72nd District by the party leaders? That hurts us all too.
We get our reps chosen for us by an elite few old men behind closed doors.
That is not the way it's supposed to be in a Democracy.
O'Brien, Ahern, McNeil, maybe others. They may be great, they may be mediocrities, they may have been disasters.
But the point is, we'll never get a chance to know. At least with McNeil, we'll never get a chance to see what sort of campaign he'd mount, what sort of candidate he'd be, or how well he'd resonate with the public.
We've seen that both O'Brien and Ahern are tough campaigners and both have a lot to offer. Allowing them to campaign in a primary would have produced a better candidate no matter who prevailed in the end. (And apparently Ahern is indeed going to do just that.)
However, reality remains that this is the way things are done in Illinois, and there is diddly-squat we can do about it, other than voice our displeasure here. (Which makes me resent Head Usher all the more for taunting those who have. It's bad enough that people have no say, but it's worse to complain when people bitch about it. ESPECIALLY when you're the beneficiary of the system. That's pretty sick, not to mention immature and graceless.)
rap on master head rusher!
cause you got dre in da house!
Fa-shizzle ma dizzle!
I see where Mike Jacobs beloved Dispatch newspaper has an editorial today that says they too wish that someone would run against him to give the voters a choice.
Hmmmmm very interesting. Any Vets of the Iraq war who want to take a spin? I know how much the local media loves to support our troops!!
I am still confused... Is Mike Boland running now for State Tres? or waiting to make the decision as well on that job until someone tells him better? Don't the Democrats have a contingency plan in place if Rep Boland runs for State Tres? Boland has won every straw poll for that job, at least here downstate, and was in Freeport last month, Mt. Vernon the month before, and is speaking at the State Fair this week. Seems he will do well state wide.
Hey confused, I am confused too. The dispacth sure did pussy foot around mike jacobs appointment and now apparent lack of a primary or general election opponent. It sure does not match the level of negativity as implied here on the dope. As far as Mr. Boland, he is waiting for Judy Tpinka to make up her mind, then the dems will come calling to him to balance the ticket. So Mr Ahern and Mr. McNeil better stay in John G's eyesight, or risk losing out on the partys support. JMHO
I think Ahern should run against Mike Jacobs.
Anon 6:17 I think if it was between Jacobs and a Iraq war vet I'd go with Jacobs!
I agree I'm not voting for anyone that is an Iraq vetran!!!!
Your loyalties aside, - I think the Iraq war vet would probably win. Voters seemed ticked off that he was appointed; granted he has yet to prove (and yes - let alone humble) himself. A little healthy democracy and debate is in order - regardless of who runs for the seat. It seems the playing field has been prematurely cleared.
Healthy democracy aside, I don't support the Iraq war.
Making war on inncent people is not the buisness the US should be in!
Agreed. Back to the issue at hand -MJ needs a little friendly competition. Any takers? Maybe The Dope should poll this... what kind of democracy is it when voters have no one to vote for...
I don't think mike jacobs is the first person to ever step into a legislative roll. dope, why not find out down in springfield. I'd be curious how many people have been appointed and I'm sure other woudl too.
Anon above, Yes, that would be interesting to know how many currently serving legislators were installed in office without election.
If I have some down time, I'll take a look.
In the meantime, if anyone has access to that info or the time to search it out, please share it with us.
currentlty? how about EVER. that would be even more intresting.
Senator A.J. Wilhelmi from Joliet, Senator Kwama Raul from the South side of Chicao, and Senator Mike Jacobs of Rock Island were all appointed to the Illinois Senate during the past six months.
Two Republican Senators stepped down last week and their replacement will likely appointed to the Senate some time next week.
So we will soon have a Senate just filled with appointed people instead of what the voters choose.
Dope, you ought to see how many of them get an opponent next fall.....
Post a Comment
<< Home