April 24, 2006

A bit more illumination on the still dim selection process

John Beydler finally comes up with the district-wide precinct numbers that matter.

At The Passing Parade, he reports that 394 committeemen out of the district's 721 total precincts were elected in the recent primary. 17th District State Central Committeeman Don Johnston believes that only those 394 have a vote in the matter, though there still hasn't been a firm opinion offered as to wheterh county chairman can appoint someone to the vacant posts and whether those appointees will then be allowed to vote.

If it holds that only committeemen elected in the primary can vote, then the weighted vote of 54.6% of the precincts, or a little over half of the total precincts in the district will play a part in the process.

I have no data to indicate the percentage of Dem voters in the District who currently live in a precinct without representation, but it must be a fairly substatial percentage who will go unrepresented.

But perhaps that's preferable, as the committeemen who were chosen in the March primary at least were chosen by democratic process, rather than plucked out of a county chair's Rolodex and commanded to vote as told by the chairman, ignoring the input of their erstwhile constituents.

It's also reported that Johnston hopes the vote can be held shortly after the third forum.


At 4/25/2006 8:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yah! You and Beydler wanting to take myvote away because no one wanted to be precinct committeemen. I find this to be disturbing. I voted for Lane Evans and I want my vote to count.

At 4/25/2006 12:57 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You have a problem.

First, you don't understand the process, and secondly, you want to blame myself and Beydler for something you dont' understand.

The process for selecting a replacement candidate for one who drops out of the race between the primary and the general election is written in state law.

No matter what you think of myself and John Beydler, I think it's safe to say that we've had nothing to do with writing or voting for that law.

Unless you're an elected precinct committeeman, you don't get to vote, period. It's still up in the air as to if you get to vote even if you're an appointed stooge who gets named at this late date soley for the purpose of voting according to the chairman who appointed you's wishes.

You voted for Lane, Lane was elected. If you think your vote should count and have the peculiar idea that it's not, then I suggest you contact Lane and blast him for dropping out, since the person you voted for is no longer in the race. (not that it would be a sane thing to do, mind you.)

Evans dropped out due to health reasons. This should have been a factor in anyone's mind when they voted for him. Unfortunately, it came to pass sooner than expected or hoped.

So now it is up to the precinct committeemen of the district to choose a replacement as dictated by law. (not a couple bloggers)

If you live in a precinct which has no committeemen, then that's hardly being disenfranchised any more than if you did.

Why? Because if you did happen to have an elected committeeman, you could tell them whom you preferred, but nothing says that they'd then vote for who you wanted (unless maybe you were some political figure and could intimidate them.)
Your neighbor might want them to vote for someone else, etc.

But the reality of the situation is, that the only people trying to influence the committemen are the candiates. There will be next to zero input from the residents of the precincts, and even so, it will likely carry little or no weight.

Actually, if you're wanting your voice to be heard, you would be agreeing with Beydler and me and calling for only elected committeemen to be eligible to vote.

And if you live in a precinct without a committeeman and the county chair appointed one and they were allowed to vote as you seem to demand, then your voice would NEVER be heard or paid attention to. You'd truly be "disenfranchise" as you say.

Why? Because if appointed committeemen are allowed to vote, (even if it's you who gets appointed) they'll be nothing but stooges for the chair who appoints them. They're bought and paid for, so to speak.

If you have a real committeeman, at least you can try to convince them of how they should vote. If you have one of these stooges, there's no way in hell you're going to change their vote.

The suggestion that you're disenfranchised is little more than a phoney ploy.

The process is not a "re-run" of the primary, so you're disenfranchised no matter if you have a committeeman or not and you should realize that by now.

Bottom line, if you're a Dem voter, you have very little voice in this decision if you happen to have an elected precinct committeeman, and if you don't, you have no voice whatsoever, even if one is appointed.

The party leaders have apparently decided that these things are too important to entrust it to you, and in a way, they aren't even entrusting it to committeemen, as they're busily trying to find ways to appoint "dummy" committeemen to vote the county chair's will and skew the process.

And if you don't like it, take it up with the county chairs, not myself or Beydler.

At 4/25/2006 3:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did my duty I voted. At the time I thought I was picking my parties primary candidate for congress. Now Lane has warned that he is not going to run again due to health concerns. As a result, local Democrat are charged with selecting a replacement.

Given Lane has not tendered his resignation, the Chairman should move to appoint precinct committeemen and assigne weighted vote to each memeber. Anything less will disanfranchise 2/3 of Rock Island Counties Democrat primary voters and is not acceptable.

That is why Attorney General Lisa Madigan is so interested in this matter. General Madigan wants to esnure voters are not represented or disanfranchised. Madiagn has too much respect for the Voting Rights Act to let that happen.

Did anyone other than me notice that most of the precinct that do not have committeemen are in heavily populated minority areas.

M. Boland and Don Johnston do not have the right to disanfranchise minority voters.

At 4/25/2006 3:35 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

The above comment is absolutely ridiculous and so blatantly typical of the usual suspect that I have no doubt of it's source.

There's lies, distortions, bullshit calls to some higher ideal that doesn't even apply, all hallmarks of these people's comments.

They obviously think people are absolute idiots and will fall for their brand of crap. Either that or they're such idiots themselves that they actually believe it, but surely that's not the case. They're just cynical politicians who think they can fool and manipulate all of the people all of the time.

There's so much bullshit in that comment that it's hard to tell where to start.

But first of all the entire premise that anyone is disenfranchised if they don't have a committeeman appointed is simply laughable.

I addressed all of this in my previous comment and don't want to repeat myself. And frankly, the above comment is so transparently false and off-base that it doesn't even deserve the time.

Anyone with the sense God gave a turnip will safely ignore it.

At 4/25/2006 10:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are hiding the truth Doper. First off the majority of areas without committeemen are in minority areas. I don't know if you are racist or just feel that these people deserve no representation. To suggest that it doesn't matter if we get our representation or not is a fools game. Quit trying to fool the good people that have no representation. I fought for this country so that I would have it. Take a suck of that.

At 4/25/2006 11:41 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You are a example of the worst sort of politics and why more and more people justifiedly consider politicians to be largely untrustworthy egomaniacal crooks.

I'm not sure if you can read or not, but try to read this and get it into your head. Have someone help you if you need to.

You ignore or can't comprehend plain facts and insists on twisting reality around so badly that it becomes fantasy.

And you're so incredibly cynical and selfish that you're able to actually say what you do and still sleep at night.

Your entire "disenfranchise" "racist" baloney is the thinking of a cynical creep who thinks that because they say it, people will believe it.

I'd normally find it humorous, but it shows such an amazing ability to be willing to lie and say anything to get your way that it's frankly disgusting.

You're a fool trying to fool people, and there is no level to which you won't stoop to try to decieve and lie to those you supposedly care about and represent.

Your arguments assume that people are idiots. They insult a normal person's intelligence just by putting them forward.

The facts are the facts. I've explained them about 5 times, but you're too stupid to grasp them or you choose to ignore them, otherwise you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

You want no part of rational debate or reality. It doesn't suit your purpose and you do very poorly when you try. Facts and reality are simply annoying things to you. You want to create some weird dream world and get mad when others don't want to join you there.

The bottom line is, you don't give a rat's ass about the people who live in precincts which don't have committeemen, poor, minorities, or otherwise. Period.

You didn't care before, and you don't care now, and you won't care in the future.

You couldn't care less, but you sure the hell want to get your grubby mitts on those votes, don't you?

Like always, you suddenly become concerned with minorities when it becomes apparent they have something you want to take from them. Then you set about cynically trying to manipulate them into giving it to you.

You want those minority precinct votes so bad so that you and others can rig the process. So you cynically profess to give a damn about so-called unrepresented citizens and minorities by dishonestly saying you think they should be represented, as if it's a noble cause.

But it's the opposite of noble. It's nothing but slime, and that's what makes it extra disgusting.

But what you can't say and won't say, is that you want these people to be represented by someone who lives nowhere NEAR their neighborhood and who will vote the way YOU tell them to, and won't reflect the will of the residents which you claim to be so concerned about any more than if they had no representitive at all.

The reason the slots aren't filled in poor and minority precincts to begin with is that you aren't too damned concerned that they have a representitive or voice in the workings of the party. Otherwise, the county organization would have been damn sure to recruit committeemen and fill those slots long ago. But no one wanted that to happen, so it didn't.

So much for your "concern" for the poor and minority precincts. What crap.

Your phoney concern for these people is nothing but cynical fakery. You don't want to GIVE these people a voice or a vote.

You don't want to GIVE them anything but a bunch of lies. But you sure want to TAKE their voice and votes and use it for your own purposes!

You want to install stooges who will vote the way you tell them.
That is no way to ensure that residents of unrepresented and minority precincts get to participate, and you know it.

You're the worst sort of hypocrite, cynical, and not troubled by lying your ass off to try to decieve people and push whatever phony "hot button's" you can dream up in hopes people will fall for it.

THAT my dim-wit friend, is "disenfranchishing" the people you pretend to care about. That is simply USING these minorities you couldn't care less about by hiding behind them in order to take their votes, the power they're entitled to, but which you want to grab for yourselves now that they finally crossed your radar screen.

You don't want a duly elected committeeman who's actualy FROM the precinct! You want a stooge who'll be in your back pocket and do as they're told, not by the people of the precinct, but by you and others.

I hope the minorities are aware of this and turn on you with a vengence, as they justifiably could.

You couldn't care less about these people until you realized you could use them to stack the deck, and in so doing so, dilute and disenfranchise the votes of hundreds of validly elected committeemen from other areas.

You're just about the most transparently cynical person imaginable, and I'm glad you comment here to show people what it looks like.

Frankly, I find it sickening and I'd wager a lot of other people do as well.

And as usual, it's not exactly rocket science to surmise where this comes from.

At 4/26/2006 10:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a lot of imaginary conspiracy theory in many of these blog comments. As for the Precincts without a Committeeperson, anyone who wanted to collect 10 signatures on a petition could have gone on the ballot to be elected. It's an ongoing effort to get the public to participate in this Democracy of ours. As a Democratic County Chairman, I am always trying to recruit people to participate in the political process. Appointment of Precinct Committeepeople is a routine way to develop active party participants with the hope that they will run for election next time around. Due to the timing of Lane's announcement, appointments can and probably will be used to swing a few votes. Election law provides for the process of appointments and lack of public involvement in the political process provides the open Precincts. To hear the non-participants complain now finds little sympathy with me. Lack of public involvement handed the County Chairman the authority. I have filled all of my open precincts will recruits made before Lane's announcement except for two which I did fill with supporters of the candidate that I am backing. A few, but not many, of the others are not backing my candidate. I believe that appointed Precinct Committeepersons have full authority as a matter of law but that is dispute right now. Hopefully, the AG will settle the matter. The law will ultimately be the guide, not our own personal opinions. I find the whole process reasonable Democratic. I have to persuade and plead for votes on behalf of my choice for nominee. I like the "Party Boss" label but in reality nobody takes orders anymore.

At 4/26/2006 10:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah right. nobody takes orders anymore. Lets just let John G.have the appointments and see how they vote. It will be easy to see how people vote even in a secret ballott beacuse the weighting gives each committeemen a thumbprint in the ammount of wieght they carry.

Remember no one takes orders anymore.

At 4/27/2006 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ya, noboy takes orders! Right!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home