On Feb. 24, 2015, Chicagoans are scheduled to vote in an election for mayor and, among a few other posts, for alderman - one for each of Chicago's 50 wards.
As a lifelong Chicago resident - though ineligible to vote since I renounced my USA citizenship 3 years ago - I'm very much interested in the underlying process. Especially on how to reform this process. Unfortunately, there is no magical solution I can suggest that can yield immediate results. And that's mostly because it will be hard to overcome the fear that grips Chicago's elite and the middle class voters who trust that elite to hold off the barbarians.
Let's talk about that fear. Chicago is a shell of its former self. Back in 1970, Chicago had a population of 3.66 million compared to its current population of 2.7 million. That's a decrease of 25%. However, the population of the USA increased by 50% during those 40 years - from 203 million to 308 million. Within Chicago's borders are huge swaths of abandoned buildings, which represent an ongoing loss to Chicago's elite. That inspires that elite to find ways to attract as much power and influence as it can to itself, which means that the downtown business district prospers while the poorer areas on the south and west sides languish.
It doesn't help that Chicago and Illinois are surrounded by states that have managed to put their financial houses in order. Of course, Chicago voters know that, so they blindly put faith in the strongman model of local governance. [Remember what the Italians said about Mussolini - "At least he made the trains run on time."]
What I'd like to see:
Transparency and greater ease of access to the ballot for potential candidates. Right now, if someone wants to run for mayor he's got to collect 12,500 signatures on nominating petitions. And those petitions can be challenged if, for instance, signatures don't match those on the voter registration cards on file with the Election Board.
Anybody can challenge these petitions, but I have a better idea. Some civic-minded individual citizen should file a Freedom of Information Act request for photocopies of all mayoral candidates' petitions. And then create a website putting all those voters' names in alphabetical order - along with their home addresses and the names of the candidates they back. Then advertise a challenge to the city's residents: "Check with this website to see if your name is listed as having signed a petition to put a particular candidate's name on the ballot." That way, we eliminate the spectacle of highly-paid lawyers to scrutinize these petitions for irregularities, who will try to convince the election commissions to agree with their findings.
All in the name of greater transparency.
Actually, such a civic-minded citizen wouldn't even have to invoke the Freedom of Information Act. All he'd have to do is exercise his right to review all of these petitions in person, so he can take photos (maybe using his own cell phone) of each page of these petitions.
On second thought:
I would advocate getting rid of the requirement to submit nominating petitions. Instead, just mandate that anyone wishing to appear on the ballot pay a $1,000 application fee. That's not much to ask, considering that candidates pay people to run around collecting petition signatures anyway.
What we really need:
A city council composed entirely of independents. We don't have to live under one-man (or one-party) rule. We routinely condemn other countries that have presidents-for-life and other forms of autocratic rule. But we so easily accept the necessity of electing a strongman, alpha male to be in charge. What we fail to keep in mind: That strongman has, and will develop an even stronger lust for, increases in his personal wealth - above and beyond the amounts he receives for his mayoral salary.
If we can get rid of the nominating petition requirement, that would open the door for a huge source of independent candidates. I'm talking about university professors who could take a sabbatical if elected. There are a lot of them in this university town and they would have the independence necessary to take a cold, hard look at how Chicago is run and make any necessary changes.
Diversify
Chicago needs to create a designated zone for growth which can challenge the downtown concentration of power. This zone should be on the south or west sides and can get a start by denying zoning permits to any company that wishes to construct buildings downtown. Or offering tax incentives to those willing to build in the designated zone.
* * *
There is only so much Chicago politicians can do to revitalize this city. But the current one-party system will refuse to act unless their own economic (and party's) interests come first. And there is simply not enough booty to go around for that to happen.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment