Term Limts (Chicago: appointed, how much, school)

[UPChicago]

I've been thinking a lot about the horrible level of corruption that occurs in the City of Chicago and was wondering how much of it has to do with the lack of term limits. Politicians become entrenched and eventually (if ever they were) stop being concerned about representing their constituents and more concerned about accumulating power and personal financial gain.

Anyone know of any attempts to introduce a proposition for term-limits in the City of Chicago? What are your thoughts on 2 terms for mayor and 3 for aldermen? Any articles on the pros and cons of term limits?

[Attrill]

Term limits would do nothing more than get some elected officials' kids into office sooner. Some things that could help make a difference would be a truly independent and robust Inspector General's office and scheduling municipal elections to happen at the same time as state and national elections.

[Prost]

There is a school of thought that elected officials are more concerned with reelection than serving their constituents; shocking, I know. Could term limits alleviate some of this? Maybe. Term limits could also help challenge the status quo and lessen the huge advantage incumbents have every year.

New York City has term limits, and I think it would be a good conversation to have.

It would be nice if we had a true two party system here too.

[UPChicago]

May a kickstarter fundraiser to start a grassroots campaign for a term limit proposition is needed. It would take 100,000 electors to sign a petition in order to have the circuit court put it up for referendum. Doesn't seem to be incredibly difficult, I wonder if it's been attempted or if not why....

[Chi-town Native]

What Attril said. Stop having elections when it's 30 degrees outside and you'll see more people vote.

I'd also suggest we take a holiday like MLK Jr day and make it a national election day. That would certainly be in keeping with the spirit of MLK Jr.

[Montclare]

I'm opposed to term limits because it punishes those Aldermen who actually do care about their constituents (yes, they do exist). If you have a good Alderman, you're going to want to keep him/her rather than have to start fresh with someone who might prove to be worthless. And like Atrill said, even if you had term limits, all that's going to happen is the sitting Alderman will retire and have someone appointed (hello Mells).

I disagree with moving the election though. I like having it separate since you can focus all your attention on the city rather than having to look at city, county, state, and federal. So many people couldn't even tell you who their state rep is, and that's partly because come election time, you're going to be paying more attention to those higher up on the ballot. Also, weather isn't as much of a factor as it used to be, since you basically have almost an entire month to cast your vote, and can do it at 51 different locations.

[Bird4Prez]

ALL FOR IT.......MIke Madigan is the poster child for term limits everywhere in the country and in every level of government. I agree that Montclare is correct about some Alderman who do care.........but I feel like those Alderman could groom members of their staff and political entourage into successful Aldermanic candidates when the sitting Alderman's term runs out. That could be a double edged sword, if you agree with Attrill's post (and I can see the point considering the recent Richard Mell situation).
Also, is there any state info database or demographic website that would show the percentage of city and state workers in Madigan's district. I feel like that part of the Southwest Side has to have a lot of public employees, since he has been getting re-elected so easily for the last FOUR decades.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by Bird4Prez

ALL FOR IT.......MIke Madigan is the poster child for term limits everywhere in the country and in every level of government. I agree that Montclare is correct about some Alderman who do care.........but I feel like those Alderman could groom members of their staff and political entourage into successful Aldermanic candidates when the sitting Alderman's term runs out. That could be a double edged sword, if you agree with Attrill's post (and I can see the point considering the recent Richard Mell situation).
Also, is there any state info database or demographic website that would show the percentage of city and state workers in Madigan's district. I feel like that part of the Southwest Side has to have a lot of public employees, since he has been getting re-elected so easily for the last FOUR decades.

My friends and I were just having a very colorful conversation about Illinois politics last night and he was our #1 target. Disaster.

[Bird4Prez]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

My friends and I were just having a very colorful conversation about Illinois politics last night and he was our #1 target. Disaster.

You could make a valid argument that he is intentionally trying to destroy the state all by himself.

[danfed]

I can't help but laugh at the suggestion of term limits. Nothing more than a cure for voter apathy. If a politician is good (perhaps an oxymoron for Chicago) you'd prefer to keep him/her in place. If you don't believe they're representing the wishes and desires of the populace they serve, get off your a$$ and vote them out.

I realize that in Illinois that may simply mean trading one bad politician for another but...

Not meant to sound jaded but in the end, people generally get what they deserve.

What would term limits do that the voting citizens couldn't do themselves?