Term Limts (Chicago, Lee: assessor, assess, office)

[pnwmdk]

You guys voted in Rahm Emmanuel. Face it, the majority LOVES corruption and they actively voted for it.

[Bird4Prez]

To the posters that are anti-term limits......I will refer to my earlier post about Mike Madigan. Only a small portion of Chicago gets to re-elect him and the rest of us in the state suffer greatly because of it. He has spent 40 years keeping the members of his distirict happy through patronage and graft while the rest of Illinois suffers for it. I have never had the opportunity to vote him out of office because I don't live on the Southwest side, yet I have considered leaving the state because of what he is doing to it. His political survival relies on 0.25% of the state's population (I'm guessing), yet his corruption and political graft affects the entire state. I am certain he would be trounced in a statewide election. So, we as other members of the state population need to be protected from a parasite who has rigged the re-election game in his own district. The only way to protect those of us who don't have the opportunity to vote Mike Madigan (and other political gangbangers like him) is to install term limits.

[Prost]

Can anyone pose an argument against term limits (besides new bad officials replacing old bad officials)? I'm interested to hear these viewpoints.

Danfed poo-pooed term limits, but Bird4Prez parried his argument effectively.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Bird4Prez

To the posters that are anti-term limits......I will refer to my earlier post about Mike Madigan. Only a small portion of Chicago gets to re-elect him and the rest of us in the state suffer greatly because of it... His political survival relies on 0.25% of the state's population....

That's not true at all. I hate Madigan, but he doesn't just automatically become Speaker of the House, he is elected by the House of Representatives. If people want him out of the Speakers job they need to let their Rep. know in no uncertain terms they want him out of the job. They could also just vote their Rep out if they voted for Madigan. Everyone has input via their Rep. Plenty of candidates statewide have run on a platform of getting rid of Madigan, and most have lost all over the state.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Prost

Can anyone pose an argument against term limits (besides new bad officials replacing old bad officials)? I'm interested to hear these viewpoints.

The best argument is that there is absolutely no evidence that it improves the situation. You can see what the impact would be by simply looking at districts where the incumbent has retired. What you'll see is chiefs of staff, long serving political operatives, and relatives taking over the open seat and absolutely no change happening at all. The former office holder then becomes a lobbyist (or business owner dealing with government contracts) with a direct line to the newly elected office holder. The new office holder is indebted to former office holder for passing on their political operation to them. Effectively it just increases the number of lobbyists and the indebtedness of office holders to those lobbyists.

What makes term limits really dangerous is that they are nothing more than a distraction. They make people think that they've done something while the rotten core of the process is still intact (if not strengthened). What is really needed is campaign finance reform, increased oversight of agencies and contracts, replacing appointments with special elections, and (best of all) an informed and engaged electorate.

[Bird4Prez]

Originally Posted by Attrill

That's not true at all. I hate Madigan, but he doesn't just automatically become Speaker of the House, he is elected by the House of Representatives. If people want him out of the Speakers job they need to let their Rep. know in no uncertain terms they want him out of the job. They could also just vote their Rep out if they voted for Madigan. Everyone has input via their Rep. Plenty of candidates statewide have run on a platform of getting rid of Madigan, and most have lost all over the state.

You are living in a world of fantasy and daydreams if you think a freshly elected rep is going to directly go after the most powerful man in politics in the state of Illinois. And you think Madigan hasn't used his THIRTY years as speaker to gain leverage, build political capital, and basically blackmail/bully other reps into falling into line. The METRA board member was terrified of the funding they were going to lose because a Madigan ward boss didn't get a $10,000 raise!!!!! Are you kidding! And we haven't even considered the millions of dollars his tax law practice has generated over the decades. 42 years in office is at least 22 years too many.
You really think a cute little write-in/town meeting style campaign designed to keep other reps accountable is going to work???? This man is the most corrupt politician in arguably the most corrupt state in the country. He is methodical, disciplined, and completely bereft of any morals.....good luck. He is standing in the way of his own daughter's political ambitions for crying out loud. Your idealistic vision of some sort of polite uprising by the people and their "input" is truly the way democracy is supposed to work, but come on, this doesn't work against career politicians who know how to turn the screws (and have been doing it since the 70s). There is no argument against term limits when you're talking about state senators, state reps, and US reps because their population size is so small. There may be a little more of an argument against term limits for US senators, mayors, governors etc, since a much larger sample of the population is included. I am not suggesting we go back to the days of ancient Greece where new citizens were installed every year to govern (I think that is how it went), but 12-16 years is enough in one office for anyone.

[Bird4Prez]

Also, according to a Trib poll from 10 months ago only 16% of Illinois voters veiw him favorably. I find it hard to believe that rep "candidates statewide" whom may have run on an anti-Madigan platform.......went on to lose specifically because of their anti-Madigan stance. I realize the link is almost a year old, but it is difficult to find consistent approval ratings on him. Almost as troubling in the link is the fact that 40% of the people polled had no opinion of him.
The Madigan scourge - Chicago Tribune

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Bird4Prez

You are living in a world of fantasy and daydreams if you think a freshly elected rep is going to directly go after the most powerful man in politics in the state of Illinois....

So what does that say about term limits and bringing new people in? "Freshly elected" reps is exactly what term limits create. There's also no way term limits are going to kick Madigan out of office any earlier than he would leave on his own (in the next term or two).

It isn't the man, it is the system. Madigan has figured out how to work it, but he didn't create it. Lee Daniels was no saint, and George Ryan was probably worse than both of them combined. I think we agree on a lot of the main issues, but I believe it is the system and you believe it is the man. Without reforming the system term limits do nothing more than change the faces.

I do believe the system can be changed. I've been working for over a decade on state Rep and Senate campaigns, and in the last one we came within 125 votes of getting rid of Toni Berrios. Next time we'll get rid of her. This stuff is do-able.

[thunderstruck666]

The problem is you only get party approved candidates to choose from. If they aren't boot licking, line toeing candidates they don't make it on the ballot, or someone with party support is on there and trounces them. Every 4 years the party insiders get together in a room full of chairs with political offices written on them. The music starts, they all circle the chairs, and when it stops whatever chair the insiders sit in is the office they run for. In Illinois, elections mean voting the old crook out of office and voting a new crook in.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by thunderstruck666

The problem is you only get party approved candidates to choose from. If they aren't boot licking, line toeing candidates they don't make it on the ballot, or someone with party support is on there and trounces them. Every 4 years the party insiders get together in a room full of chairs with political offices written on them. The music starts, they all circle the chairs, and when it stops whatever chair the insiders sit in is the office they run for. In Illinois, elections mean voting the old crook out of office and voting a new crook in.

What would help to change this?