Election Season Rhyme and Reason

{cross posted at GapersBlock.com}

Top of the ballot:

Should the citizens of Illinois hold a Constitutional Convention?

I wrote about this issue a few weeks back. And the answer is that yes, they should. The only compelling argument I've heard against the Con-Con was that it could endanger state and local employee pensions. That seems to be unlikely if not untrue — due to the federal Constitution's so-called "contracts clause," and also because pensioners are probably the most well-organized constituency group against the Con-Con, so I don't think they'll be left weeping on the sidelines when the Con-Con comes.

The reasons to support it are myriad.

First of all, the problem with Illinois politics is not the current "bums," and therefore the solution to the problem is not one that could be solved by throwing the current bums out. The problem with Illinois politics is a system that concentrates an enormous amount of power in very few hands; a districting system that allows politicians to choose their voters, rather than vice versa; and an education funding formula that makes equal opportunity nearly impossible.

Secondly, the fear of "special interests" dominating the Con-Con process is ridiculous on its face, particularly because it is being offered by a coalition of special interests. But the system is blind to which special interest is benefitting from the system. Sometimes, progressive or "good" interests are able to dominate the political climate in Springfield; sometimes, it has been the "bad" interests. I don't want to be in the position today of supporting a system because my "team" benefits, and then be left with no arrows in my quiver when the other team takes control.

Third, the left has an ideological duty to support measures that devolve power to the greatest possible number — as close to "the people" as possible. We cannot say we are for democracy sometimes, but then oppose it when we fear its outcome. Certain rights cannot be infringed, even by majority whim — the right to vote, the right to privacy, due process, etc. — but most of the rules that effect our civic lives get their legitimacy from majority rule, and every chance to bring the policy making process to the grassroots level should be supported, or we risk making hypocrites of ourselves either in the future or in the past.

Rich Miller has provided the most elegant argument about how the concentration of power compromises the political system. And it's a simple argument: Carefully constructed legislative districts make only a handful of seats competitive, and the majority party's leadership controls the legislative process from beginning to end. There is no chance for elected officials to meaningfully buck their parties, or forge a policy or legislative consensus outside of party leadership. If you want to get something done, you have to deal with Michael Madigan, and Madigan alone, in the House. Ditto (for the time being) for Emil Jones in the Senate. This kind of concentration of power constricts the "marketplace of ideas" that should reflect the diversity of opinion in the state, while also ironically making it easier for the largest organized interests to buy their way into favor.

And, at the end of the day, the voters still get a chance to vote the new constitution up or down. Personally, I believe in the people's ability to govern themselves — even if the process may seem chaotic to us.

Vote Yes for a Con-Con. If you're afraid of what the results could be, pay attention to the process. Organize. Be a delegate. But don't ever say no out of fear — because that's the message the anti forces are sending out: "If we call a Con-Con things could get better; but they could also get worse." Americans — left, right, center — have a voracious appetite for change right now. But change doesn't come to the timid.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "Timid men... prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." I'm not scared of a bit of boisterousness — are you?

Other Illinois Races, in Two Clever Sentences Each, With Some Cheating Via Judicious Use of the Semi-Colon:

Aaron Schock versus Colleen Callahan (US House - IL18)
Schock is a wunderkind, but may also be a careless notary. Colleen Callahan is probably Irish.
Prediction: Schock +12%

Marty Ozinga versus Debbie Halvorson (US House - IL11)
Ozinga looks like a cartoon character of a plutocrat, sans cigar. Debbie Halvorson is from Crete but, sadly, is not a Minoan-American.
Prediction: Halvorson +4%

For more predictions, and to comment, predict, and mock, visit the original at GapersBlock.com}