Wednesday, February 28, 2007
News / Clout City Bumps in the road?
Posted by Mick Dumke on 02.28.07 at 02:22 PM
I once asked an alderman if I could talk to him about Chicago’s independent politicians. “Have you found any yet?” he asked me. They were hard to come by at that time—about three years ago—and they’re still not plentiful. But more of them might start surfacing after yesterday.
For starters, Richard Daley may have won by a huge margin, but the raw (and unofficial) totals show that few voters were enthusiastic about him or the race. Daley has never won a mayoral election with so few votes--317,266, with 98 percent of the precincts reporting. While Dorothy Brown ran a campaign that was far too conservative and low-key (not to mention underfunded) to compete, I’m not sure anyone thought she would finish under 100,000 votes.
In the City Council races three incumbents lost outright: the 7th Ward’s Darcel Beavers, who’s only held the seat for a couple of months, after being appointed to replace her father; the 20th Ward’s Arenda Troutman, whose campaign imploded after she was charged with bribery last month; and the 42nd Ward’s Burton Natarus, who’s best known for his off-center speechmaking (on anything from comic books to wake in the Chicago River) and attempts to legislate cleanliness and social order.
It’s not at all clear what priorities their replacements will bring to the council—or, more to the point, how likely they will be to part ways with the mayor. Brendan Reilly, Natarus's usurper, has vowed to work closely with Mayor Daley, and more importantly, the 42nd Ward produced more than 10,000 votes for the mayor, one of the highest totals in the city. That means Reilly will likely be under pressure to go along with the administration when contentious issues come up.
In the 20th Ward Troutman was defeated by Willie Cochran, who was backed by Bishop Arthur Brazier and the Reverend Leon Finney Jr., two of the most powerful figures on the south side—and big-time Daley supporters.
Seventh Ward alderman-elect Sandi Jackson is the most likely of the three to go her own way, since she owes her seat to her husband, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., an ambitious would-be mayor and occasional critic of Daley’s. For years the ward has been dominated by proud machine Democrat William Beavers, the city chairman of the Cook County Democratic Party. But last night his daughter polled less than a third of the votes cast, and Daley garnered 53 percent of the ward’s mayoral votes—a majority, but one of his shakiest performances in the city.
Of the 11 wards that will have runoff elections, independent-minded aldermen are most likely to come out of the 15th, 16th, 21st, and 49th wards. Daley had underwhelming support in the 15th and 16th, where union-backed Toni Foulkes and JoAnn Thompson were the top finishers yesterday. Twenty-first Ward incumbent Howard Brookins Jr. hasn’t had the smoothest relationship with the mayor over the last four years; his opponent, Leroy Jones Jr., is an official with the Service Employees International Union; and the 21st’s voters are among the most Daley-skeptical in Chicago, giving Dorothy Brown and Dock Walls their highest combined total (6,807) of any ward. In the 49th Ward, where alderman Joe Moore will face activist Don Gordon, voters have elected independents since 1979.
On the other side, no alderman has been more enthusiastic about his love of the mayor than the 12th Ward’s George Cardenas, who routed union-backed opponent Carina Sanchez. But that doesn’t mean his ward is as crazy about Daley as he is. The mayor won the ward handily, but received fewer than 4,000 votes there, one of his weakest showings anywhere. And while Cardenas helped Daley sustain his veto of the big-box minimum-wage ordinance last fall, 83 percent of 12th Ward voters backed a nonbinding referendum favoring a “living wage.”
Add it all up and the list of potential independents looks something like this: incumbents Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Fredrenna Lyle (6th), Ricardo Munoz (22nd), who all won reelection outright; Foulkes (15th), Thompson (16th), and Moore (49th), should they win; and Brookins or Jones (21st). On certain issues the mayor’s declining support—or aggressive federal investigators—could embolden aldermen Manny Flores (1st), Billy Ocasio (26th), Ed Smith (28th), Tom Allen (38th), and Helen Shiller (46th), who’ve all shown flashes of independence. If they win runoffs, expect Pat Dowell (3rd), Scott Waguespack (32nd), Alderman Rey Colon (35th), and Naisy Dolar (50th) to join in the fun every so often.
Of course, all of these people could decide that it’s just easier to let the mayor do his thing while they stick to securing the money for new speed bumps in their alleys. It’s happened before.
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
> Of course, all of these people could decide that it’s just easier to let the mayor do his thing ... It’s happened before. Welcome To The Machine Prior to being sworn in the frosh aldermen will get their lobotomies through their eye sockets so scars won't show in their official photos.
like
dislike
Alderman-elect Brendan Reilly is already keeping good on his first major campaign promise: to keep local residents more informed about issues affecting them, especially development. Less than three days before the polls closed, and nearly three months before he even takes office, Reilly's website features a new e-mail newsletter for folks to sign up for in each of the eight neighborhoods he'll represent.
And since those HTML tags didn't work (some days I'm less technologically challenged than others), local residents can sign up for issue alerts from Alderman-elect Brendan Reilly at www.reillyforchicago.com
==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT== This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning. I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'. While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind. I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public. This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s). Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected. In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%. It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties. So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!). Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula: * 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them. * 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate. * 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST. * 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST. * 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed. Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above. If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate? If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office? Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)? Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)? Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways? As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing. The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT. The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by their deeds. Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few. To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said: * You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time * You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time * But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.
11 wards having one-on-one runoffs! Oh joy! now, if only the word could be spread that this is a great opportunity to see how effective the 'spock' proposal could be. While some of the challengers may turn out to be as spineless as the incumbents they replace, why not give them a chance to show us what they're made of? The incumbents already have. And if you are one of the few who are satisfied with what these incumbents have been up to, I congradulate you on your city job, your city contract and your good fortune, gleaned at the expense of your fellow Chicagoans' pocketbooks. What a sweet deal being a small cog in the city machine must be. All you have to do is sell your soul.
Are you instigating so much hatred in our community against Vilma Colom. She just wants to look after our best well being. She is inclusive, not exclusive. Vilma will work hard for all of us! Vilma is a teacher an edutator while Rey Colon..Criminal Record speaks loud and clear.. THIS IS THE RECORD REY COLON STANDS ON: November 18, 1984-charged with Possession of controlled Substance case# 84-1-1704092,IR#725000 TWO REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR REY COLON: DOES NOT PAY BILLS UNTIL JUDGEMENT IS PUT ON HIS HOUSE Case#89-M-176755/Dental Bills Case#-MI-100725/Hospital Bills Case#95-MI109976/Gas Bill Case#90-MI-168014/Rent January 18, 1985-Charged with thef case#85-111-130001 January 2,1987-Charged with DUI/Alcohol ticket#5320914 June 13,1990 charge with Mob Action Case #90-131-0773 June 2 1992 Charge with Possesion of Cannabis-6/29/92 Bond Forfeiture, defendant rearrested 8/4/93, 9/15/93 Bond Forfeiture defebdant rearrested 1998 December 1995- Charged with Statury Summary Suspension a.k.a An administrative procedure after a driver arrested for DUI who fails testing or who refuses to submit to fails to complete testing-Ticket#121792 September 28,1996-His license was revoked until July 9,1997 rey was arrested eight times driving on a suspended license and has numerous sppeding tickets on his driving record. HE DIDN'T PAY CHILD SUPPORT UNTIL HIS WAGES WERE GARNISHED. HIS WIFE WAS GRANTED CUSTODY OF THEIR DAUGHTER AND HE WAS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE VISITATION CASE#93-D-4219 THIS IS REY'S TRUE RECORD!DO YOU WANT AN ALDERMAN WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND? REY DOESN'T OBEY THE LAW...SO HOW CAN HE REPRESENT THE LAW
