The Blog

I second the motion. It's time for her to go -- and take Shirley Coleman with you.

If Arenda Troutman is reelected I will lose the last of my faith in Chicago's voters. John Stroger's victory last year was bad enough.

the last of your faith in the voters no-brainer. you must be new here. I lost faith a long time ago. I wondering by how much of a landslide Troutman wins by. and as for Stroger. he will easily be elected next time around.

Obviously none of you live in the 20th ward, so you don't realize that we don't have much of a choice. We can vote for an admitted "ho," who takes paltry bribes to grease development, or a likely lapdog of the real powers-that-be in the neighborhood (see above), who seem to content to run the ward as if they were lords of a fief. What would you do? Me, I'm voting for the dentist (I think).

As a 20th ward resident I feel it is time for a change. Although, Troutman is innocent until proven guilty, residents need an Alderman that is fair to all of it's constituents. She's had 17 years to make things right.. and she hasn't. As for stroger, I feel people should give him a chance. In a few months he has replaced his ailing father, won the election and has to balance the beleaguered Cook County budget. Considering all this and his time constaints I think it is fair for him to have staffed his administaraion with qualified individuals that he knows and thrusts. What the public isn't being told by the media is that governmental agencys have inter-departmental budgets. You can't easily borrow money from one budget to balance another. It can be done, but it's easier said than done. If a given department doesn't have enough money to pay it's employees, unfortunately layoffs have to be considered. Private and public sector entities have heafty executive/administrative budgets. The Cook County board is the second largest municiple post in this nation. Do you actually think certain people want this young black man to hold this post? His main opponents (Forrest Claypool & Tony Peraica) are perpetuating all the negative press and using unions and their rallys for their personal/politcal gain. They are just two sore losers! We are too intelligent to fall for negative propaganda recently in the media. Give Stroger a chance to do his job. The following quote is so fitting! If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. -- Malcolm X

Torn on this election. Troutman is a crook and a self professed "ho", but Cocharan will be a "ho" for Bishop Braizer, Rev. Leon Finney, and Jesse Jackson Jr. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

It is time for term-limits for elected official in Chicago.

as long as the power alderman are still in office ain't going to happen

Check out my blog. I'm again stimulating a dialoauge about an African town/village. A tourist destination, in the 3rd and 20th wards. Let us know your thoughts. Africantownchicago.wordpress.com

There are term limits in place, they are called elections. When the people want a term to end, they vote the person out. Do you think the people are too stupid to vote in their own best interests ?

Here is the problem: people have grown too cynical about the politics and elections in Chicago that they don't bother to vote.

If that is the case, there is a saying that in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. You are saying the people are too stupid to know what is good or bad for them.

You need a reading comprehension class. What I am saying is that a democracy needs participation by the electorate? If not then you have problems such as entrenched aldermen and mayors with no accountability. One way to handle the cynicism is to limit the time someone can serve the public.

lobby the legislators for term limits other wise,Let's just hope for the best!

Dennisk needs a civics class. if the people wanted a change, they would find their way to the polls come hell or highwater. just because YOU have a problem with the status quo, do not assign your problems with the rest of the electorate.

I am researching whether an Alderman can propose an ordinance regarding term limits or whether we have to have a voter referendum. A voter referendum would be nice. If anyone has any ideas on how to proceed please share them here.

Think what you want about Troutman, but those are allegations. There is now proof that Rev. Finney and Bishop Brazier are using The Woodlawn Organization (its workers, vans, and funds) to campaign for Cochran. That is illegal and immoral. Two TWO employees (including the program director of Ceasefire) have stepped forward to expose these practices. I actually have the pictures showing TWO/WCDC vans plastered with Cochran posters. Anybody who's interested in the real deal, and not just some allegations and emotion--zarakyah1@tmo.blackberry.net

Well, I live on the "other side" of Cottage Grove. Most people don’t like to go "over there," (west of Cottage Grove near 63rd). Troutman has had enough time to implement change in the community and so what if TWO and Apostolic Faith are supporting Cochran... we should take into consideration that it is the community based organizations and the churches that are most connected to the rhythm of the community. I don’t think the El Rukins and Jeff Fort had it wrong, there is needs development for and by the people that live there- and have lived there for generations. Kudos to those U of C students and the condo owners that took the "risk" and now reside in Woodlawn for being engaged in the political scene. However, there are lives at stake here- families are being displaced and crime continues as people struggle to make it.

We need so much in the 20th word. It's good someone is doing something. We must to get involved and form our own companies to assure everyone will benefit!

==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.

Being an expert profiler and political buff. I've assertained that you assume several idenities: DM, and Spock. However, in my expert opinion I have identified you as DAVID E. NEELY,how am I doing so far. You kinda outted yourself along time ago! It is really sad the way things worked out for you, I really think you would fight for what you feel is right. Don't be bitter.. Get your stuff in order for the next election. Your beginning to behave like your name really is SPOKE... and you are out of this world. GOOD LUCK!

I wasn't sure but I was scared to put a comment on here for fear of beiing attacked. DM and spoke sound like frustrated politicans.

The election of a representative is our heritage. Alderman must be open, available and good listeners to vote in the best interest of the wards residents and the country. Any less is a tragic violation of trust. The selling of a vote is akin to trafficing in the lives of people from all walks of life and race. I live and work in the 20th ward, it is all not a sewer, if we speak up and do what is right. The 10 C's is a good place to start.