Peoria Pundit

I have something I need to reveal, but the fewer people who know it, the better. So I thought I would place a visually appealing image in this post in the hopes of distracting readers.

Perhaps people will think I’m starting up with the eye candy thing again and that all the words were some nonsense about Scarlett and her husband, that loser who was on the show about the pizza parlor with the actress from “Monk.”

So, if don’t really need to know what embarrassing thing happened to me today, then gaze upon Scarlett, sigh, and move on to the next post. ‘Kay?

Scarlett Johansson

Read more »

Let me make something very clear: I am probably going to vote for Jim Ardis.

I think the incumbent Ardis has done a better job that any of his recent predecessors. I’m a bit miffed at some of the votes he’s taken in favor extending TIF’s undeveloped green fields, and with his recent support for District 150 school closings. But he lived up to his promise to making resident’s safer.

So I’m probably going to vote for him.

But I want the option of NOT voting for him. Politicians do a better job when voters have the option of tossing them out on their ear.

And right now, challenger General Parker is the only alternative.

But because of convictions on his record, it’s doubtful he could serve. If he wins, Ardis could easily challenge the results and probably win. And Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons is sending threatening letters to Parker telling him to drop out.

So, the best thing that could happen would be for Pat Quinn to issue Parker the pardon he has been seeking. Parker isn’t trying to hide anything, as far as I can tell, so it’s not like Peorians are being mislead about his past. And I rather doubt the guy is out stealing cars. He’s no threat to anybody.

Frankly, I find the idea of a council candidate selling $5,000 “platinum sponsorships” far more offensive and a much better threat to good government than having a former juvenile delinquent running for mayor.

And I have a libertarian disdain for the idea of kicking underdog candidates off the ballot. Early voting has started, and kicking Parker off the ballot would nullify votes already cast.

Gov. Quinn can be contacted here.

As noted earlier, I waited in line for about 45 minutes to vote. I got in line at about 9:30 a.m. and got back to my car at about 10:20 a.m. When I got in line, a woman exiting the building said she had to wait about 1 hour, 5 minutes. Yikes.

I considered coming back later, but decided to get it over with.

We chatted with out line mates about the weather, kids, what we were doing for dinner — you know, the usual bonding experience of voting. No one chatted about politics. No one mentioned WHO they were voting for. We all were resigned to having to wait, since the media’s been warning us for months that the lines would be long. The closest I heard to a complaint was a long, resigned sigh.

At one point, I did joke that turnout is probably going to be to close to 120 percent of registered voters. A guy in line behind me suggested I don’t even joke about that. I honored his wish.

We were united in our admiration for on particular line mate. Several mothers where there with children in tow. Most of the kids were in strollers. But this one young mother had three, approximate ages 3,2 and a babe in arms. The kids were astonishingly well-behaved (and were cute as all get-out). The women in line with me noted that it took some endurance to carry a baby that long.

And all I’m thinking was that this woman — I’m guessing she was half my age — had the perfect excuse for skipping the whole thing.

People really, really wanted to vote this year.

I don’t mind waiting 45 minutes to get into the booth. But I do mind having to use this funky system that requires use of a dial that resembles a “See and Say” toy.

This device nearly ruined my vote in the presidential race.

I cast my vote for Obama and Biden and moved on, casting my votes for other races in exactly the same way.

When I got to the end of the process, I start to cast my ballot and notice that my choice for president is … no choice. And the entire list was in small print and a barely noticed it in time. Fortunately, I was allowed to go back and cast my vote AGAIN. That time it took. At least, I think so. How can one tell with electronic voting?

Feh.

UPDATED: This little post got picked up by this site, suggesting there’s some fraud going on. Folk, I know Tom Bride, the guy who runs things at the election commission. He’s an honorable guy. I’m sure this is a glitch. And THAT is my beef with these machines is that they are capable of  making mistakes no one would notice.

I tend to get a lot of email from folks wanting to know where they can go on the Web to find information.

I am tempted to reply: “Um … Google?” I mean, who do they think I am, “Mr. Know-it-All?”

So, here is one such link I’ve passed along, as well as some that already were in my inbox.

peoriavotes.com

I looked for this for two days, and I finally got Tom Bride to point me here.

Wanna vote on which new log Peoria ought to use, you can go here. If you want to take a look at the city’s preliminary budget, you can go here.

And the Community Word online edition is updates and available for viewing.

I just saw pal Tom Bride, executive director of the Peoria Election Commission, promote early voting on HOINews. He likes early voting because it leads to shorter lines on election day, which makes his job a lot easier.

I say that early voting is for suckers.

Let’s say I vote early — three weeks before election day. What happens if some intrepid reporter at the Journal Star discovers that one of the people I voted for has criminal record, Or, heaven forbid, claimed to have a degree that wasn’t actually earned. I’d have to spend that entire three weeks period wishing I had voted for the other candidate.

I know, I know. Nothing like that could POSSIBLY happen.

Take my advice: Don’t vote early or submit an absentee ballot unless you absolutely have to do so. If you have to stand in line on election day, so be it. Consider it your civic duty.

I took note of this “quotable” from today’s Word on the Street:

“Of all the things to worry about and have the (city) staff take up their time with, this isn’t in the top half dozen,” At-large Councilman Gary Sandberg, responding to an inquiry about a proposal before the City Council Tuesday to add a referendum to the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters to alter Peoria’s primary. (J.S.)

Honestly, I was amazed by this. Sandberg has always been an essential services first kind of politicians, and I can think of few services more essential to the public than maintaining a healthy electoral system. I wondered why he lacked any enthusiasm for the referendum.

I emailed Sandberg for a more detailed explanation of his views. His response:

“Giving the voters a say in the method.” The method that is used is registered voters voting. The state change and this referendum that will revert back to “status quo” does not change the method only when and whether there has to be a primary election in lieu of a general election.

Let’s first look at the assumption that the state law reducing the need for Primaries is a bad law, a flawed law, a law that promotes bad governance. If that is the case, then the change needs to be made in Springfield and not just allowing those few cities with “home rule powers” to right a wrong in their jurisdictions.

Clearly the stated reasoning behind the law is to reduce thee costs for primary elections. My position is that other than politico junkies, most citizens are more concerned about basic essential services. ie taking the $75,000 saving that is anticipated to save the City of Peoria from a Primary and hiring a police officer or perhaps establishing a free recycling program city wide.

Junkies will start the discussion with the “plurality vs majority” argument of a general election where there are more than two candidates for an office. In actuality, it is the candidate with the most votes, not the highest percentage that wins or on the case of At Large, the 5 candidates with the highest votes wins. If you factor in the Ardis rule for measuring success at the poles, unless a person or an issue gets over 50% of the total possible registered votes, the result is not determinable, one really wonders why he is behind this referendum. I would assume that unless the measure passes with a majority of the possible registered votes, then the measure should not pass.

Check out www.fairvote.org especially discussion of “ranked choice selections” in plurality election, ( http://www.fairvote.org/?page=37 ) which really starts looking at the methods which can be used to assure the will of the voters.

Unfortunately, this “called for referendum” is not the result of any public discussion or public movement, but rather just the “safety first” belief of incumbent politicians that status quo got us here, so status quo is good.

I really don’t have a defined opinion on the state statute change impact other than it would reduce costs. Whether the impacts of shaking the system and actually allowing a “surprise candidate” winning is a bad thing and therefore overrides the potential savings is a stance I am NOT WILLING to assume. I really doubt if the discussion of the referendum if allowed will really be about the concept or the method or even the potential money saved, but rather just voting on those voters “gut reaction” to a referendum that does NOT lay out the issues, but rather only the two alternative results.

While all that is going on, there are not referendums as to whether government should offer City tax dollar subsidies to doctors for parking decks, or developers of hotels to build new ones or remodel existing ones, or to create expansions of Enterprise Zones in non blighted areas or how about a couple more TIF Districts yet it is in those decisions that the tax money disappears to provide the basic essential City services.

The manner in which people are elected IS an IMPORTANT essential governmental service and the manner established by state government is NOT within the top six MORE IMPORTANT issues that the voters need or prefer to weigh in on. I would suspect the majority of voters would be more interested in referendums relating to those issues where large sums of local tax dollars are spent not whether a candidate needs a majority of votes in an election where a minority of voters vote. I am looking for the circumstances where the voters are first informed, and then motivated in numbers to vote, then and only then is the plurality/ majority debate of consequence. This proposed referendum does not get me closer to that circumstance.

My two cents: I think it’s obvious that Sandberg is still upset the battle for funding for the Peoria Public Library expansion. It’s understandable, considering the behind-the-scenes tactics used by some members of the council. But he is right about one thing: I would like for there to be a chance for the public to vote on a new policy for when the city should establish a tax increment financing zone or changing the boundaries or an enterprise zone. Perhaps Gary could make such a motion at Tuesday’s meeting.