Thursday, January 10, 2008
News / Clout City The surge
Posted by Mick Dumke on 01.10.08 at 06:36 PM
Some locals are expressing shock and trying to analyze Barack Obama's loss in the New Hampshire primary this week. As one powerful, north-side alderman who might have an estranged family member in state government said--admiringly--of Hillary Clinton, "I think people saw her crying and said, 'This bitch is human--she's got feelings.'"
But Obama's win in Iowa apparently electrified voters here and may inspire turnouts that affect other contests on the February 5 ballot. According to Jim Allen, communications director for the Chicago Board of Elections, between January 3, the day of the Iowa caucuses, and January 8, when traditional voter registration closed in Illinois, nearly 20,000 city residents signed up to vote. And the registrations were "heavily skewed" to people under 30, Allen said.
"I don’t know if we’re quite at the point where voting has become cool, but there’s never been a last-minute rush like this for the primary in Illinois," Allen said.
Of course, the primary's being held here a month earlier than previously, so it's the first time in decades that Illinois residents will vote in one that matters.
People who haven't registered still can [PDF]--they just have to go down to the Board of Elections office at 69 W. Washington to do it.
Early voting starts at 51 sites throughout the city next week. Allen predicts record turnouts there too.
Comments (7)
Showing 1-7 of 7
like
dislike
It MAY be Barack Obama. It also may be that the election is sooner this year and everybody said "Oh, shit. I have to register!" It may be that the Illinois primaries might actually MEAN something this year. It didn't mean ANYTHING in 2004. Kerry was already decided. It hasn't meant anything for as long as I've lived in Illinois. /It was March 16 in 2004. This year it's February 5.
Maybe the CBOE may want to warn the newly registered voters that their rights could be terminated if they sign a petition for anyone not connected to the machine. Just ask the 43 voters in the 32nd ward that wanted to add a candidate to the ballot for Democratic Committeeman and had their affidavits dismissed by the Board of Elections.
Want change? Tired of the status quo? Enough with having elected officials pick who should be the anointed one? You have a choice in the seventh. http://www.suzanneelder.org/index.html
Before concerning ourselves with discovering reasons to vote FOR anyone, I suggest that we, as in most citizens of this city, county and state, already have plenty of reasons to NOT vote for incumbents. But not voting for incumbents doesn't, by itself, keep them from being reelected. Here's a voting strategy that will: REGISTER TO VOTE VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT If an Incumbent has only one Challenger, vote FOR that Challenger, no matter who it may be. If an Incumbent has two or more Challengers, (as is common in a Primary Election), then cast your vote according to Ballot Name Position, to wit: If the Incumbent's name is listed FIRST, then vote For the CHALLENGER whose name is listed LAST or If the Incumbent's name is NOT listed first, then vote for the CHALLENGER whose name IS listed FIRST This will concentrate the most votes for a single Challenger, thus greatly increasing the likelihood of the Incumbent losing. In a Primary Election, an Incumbent losing eliminates that Incumbent from running, as their party's candidate, in the General Election. Since here, in Illinois, we do not have 'open' primaries, we must declare which party's primary we wish to vote in. If we find that there are mostly incumbent Republicans that we'd like to see NOT be reelected, we should vote in the Republican Primary by requesting a Republican Ballot. If we find that there are mostly incumbent Democrats that we would prefer NOT be reelected, then we would request a Democratic Ballot. In either case, we should apply the above voting strategy and see what happens. If enough citizens do so, concentrating their collective votes for single Challengers in every contest, the Incumbents are guaranteed to lose. At the very least, the application of this voting strategy will do much to break up the long term domination of the political machines of both 'major' political parties, and inspire truly honest and independent citizens to run for office. This strategy is easier to remember and act on then trying, at this point in time, to discern the difference between the liars, that are our current crop of politicians, and the damned liars. It will also compel the changes we are in so desperate a need of. If there are individual candidates that you've decided merit your vote, by all means, vote for them. But, if you don't know with reasonable certainty that a candidate deserves your vote, I encourage you to use the above voting strategy. In my humble opinion.
I have a feeling that the Have No Doubt asshole is going to be positively giddy come February 5. I'm voting anti-incumbent on my ballot when it comes to my state senator and legislator. I wish this anti incumbency/democratic reform fervor had hit its full tilt before the Toddler got re-elected and before JJJ decided not to run against Daley. I don't think the fervor can last for another 3 years. But, you never know. When Olympic costs start piling up, there could be a wave of resentment against Da Mare. And people will be out for blood when it comes time for Toddler to run for re-election. He shouldn't bother. And the guv is toast in 3 years (yeesh). 16% approval.
