Yes!

   The great news, in my view, is that a progressive woman is running for senate!  I was hoping she'd run.

 Could we really have a fight in the Republican primary?  We can't be that lucky.

24, Male, GA-05

---

by: cilerder86 @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 04:38:48 AM UTC

Can we just get Blagojevich out ASAP?

I'd much rather Blagojevich resign or get removed by the state legislature than have to go through a special election that will cost Illinois taxpayers $60 million.

If he will hurry up and make his exit, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn becomes governor and he can appoint a senator without the taint of scandal who can run in 2010.

As much as I love special elections and all the drama that comes with it, I just don't see the need for going through this one if the underlying problem (Blagojevich's corrupt ass) can be fixed.

---

by: NCDem @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 05:06:30 AM UTC

I agree.

If they are going to impeach Blagovich, there's no need for a special election, especially if the seat is up again in 2010.  Lt. Gov should appoint a placeholder if that's the case.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 05:27:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do there have to be party primaries?

ILLINOIS RESIDENTS DESERVE A SPECIAL ELECTION

I would prefer special elections with entrants from both parties, as many candidates as possible, and a runoff between the two top vote-getters.  Since there has never been a special election for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, that is just as legal as anything else and much more democratic.

And the "underlying problem" is a loophole in the Constitution that gives one person the power to choose a senator (but not a U.S. rep).  This is anti-democratic and anti-American.

I support progressive groups that are seeking to change the law so this outrage ends.  John Nichols of Nation Magazine has written extensively on these efforts for a constitutional amendment or state laws changing the system.

Whatever the cost of a special election is, it is way, way, way less than the cumulative corruption tax us Illinois residents pay for tax monies used for a wide variety of corrupt purposes.

We want to vote.  And, by the way, Patrick Quinn is very, very populist and very, very, very anti-Democratic establishment so frankly you're not going to like the person he appoints if he's given the opportunity.  He's apt to appoint an independent who is relatively conservative.

Shalom,
ZWrite

---

by: zwrite @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 05:33:03 AM UTC

Why shouldn't there be a primary

and then a general?  That's how elections are run in this system.

And the Constitution doesn't give one person the power to choose anything.  State legislatures are allowed to pick how a Senator is replaced, which makes sense since the original method was to have them elect the Senator in the first place.  This is how the IL legislature is able to then revoke the governor's authority if they get their act together and do so.

---

by: wmlawman @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 05:58:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Constitutional amendment needed

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NEEDED

"State legislatures are allowed to pick how a Senator is replaced, which makes sense since the original method was to have them elect the Senator in the first place."

No, it doesn't make sense.  The "original method" was outmoded at best by 1910, dumb at worst.  That's why it was changed.  The "original method" also didn't allow women or African-Americans to vote and allowed slavery to exist for four score and seven years.

There should be a constitutional amendment much like the one that was passed sometime around 1910 that called for the direct election of senators.

And yes the loophole is anti-democratic -- as the "original method" of electing senators was.  And yes by allowing state legislatures to abdicate the decisionmaking to one person, the loophole is giving the power to one person.

Currently, according to a Nation Magazine article, 47 of the 50 states let governors make the sole decision.  That is outrageous and should be changed.

And the primary/general election scenario is NOT done in cities all over the nation.  I covered about 20 cities as a reporter.  NONE had party primaries.  None!!!  This lack of partisanship makes citizens more convinced that their leaders are acting for the good of them, not the political parties that they may or may not covertly belong to.

The fact that it is done in states doesn't make it right.  George Washington was right.

Shalom,
ZWrite

---

by: zwrite @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 06:45:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would like to see

Some polls or empirical studies which support this point:

This lack of partisanship makes citizens more convinced that their leaders are acting for the good of them, not the political parties that they may or may not covertly belong to.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 07:02:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If it were as outrageous as you say it is...

Why did Barasso easily get re-elected... Murkowski was re-elected after her wildly criticized appointment.  If it were as agregious of an action voters have every right to vote for somebody else.  Why don't they?  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 08:00:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uh

Why shouldn't there be a primary? That's how we run elections in Illinois.

It's not a loophole in the Constitution that governors can appoint senators, senators weren't even democratically picked until the 18th ammendment. It's up to the states to determine how we pick senators. So if we want to remove the governors' power to appoint a senator we should go with that route.  

---

by: sulthernao @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 06:33:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because

It'd be really simply to have just Roskam and Kirk run for the GOP while the Dems get like 10 candidates, thus making it extremely possible for only 2 GOPers to end up in the run-off.

---

by: Andrew @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 14:54:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]