Category Archives: Elections

Let the City Council race begin

Intrepid WMBD-AM 1470 reporter Dave Dahl was at the Election Commission this morning interviewing candidates who were filing petitions to run for the five at-large City Council seats in April. Today was the first day potential candidates could file. And the first ones to file were:

  • Dan Irving
  • George Jacob (by proxy)
  • Patti Polk
  • Chuck Schierer
  • Ryan Spain
  • Gale Thetford

Yes, that’s right — Gale Thetford wants to run for an at-large seat. No doubt she wants to do to all of Peoria what she did to the 3rd District. Let’s see, she was a big supporter of MidTown Plaza, eminent domain takeovers of little old ladies’ houses on Dechman, and the TIF created to make it all possible. And she supported the regressive $6/mo. garbage “fee” with which the city is still saddled. Oh, yeah, she’ll do great in an at-large race at a time when essential services are foremost in citizens’ minds (thanks to the snow-plowing fiasco).

I’ve said this before, but I just love saying it — I had the pleasure of voting against Gale Thetford in the last council election before I moved to the West Bluff. Now, thanks to this at-large bid, I’ll have the pleasure of voting against her again.

Who’s running for Peoria City Council?

Well, we know Gary Sandberg is, as is George Jacob and Eric Turner. And we know Chuck Grayeb and John Morris are not running. Other than that, your guess is as good as mine.

But I can tell you this: Here are the names of the people who picked up petitions for the upcoming election as of noon today. Presumably these people are considering running and are trying to get the necessary signatures. Other than the ones I already mentioned, no one else has announced their candidacy to my knowledge:

  • Patti Polk
  • Dan Gillette
  • W. Eric Turner
  • Ryan Spain
  • Gary Forssander
  • Dan Irving
  • Paul Sherwood
  • Gary V. Sandberg
  • Charles Schierer
  • Donald Cummings
  • Kelley C. McGownn Mammen
  • William B. Bates
  • Gloria Cassel Fitzgerald
  • Brad Carter
  • George Jacob
  • Ron Theobald
  • Jim Montelongo

I got these from the Election Commission and they’re all handwritten, so if I misspelled anything, it’s because I couldn’t read the handwriting.

Is this a case where city/county cooperation could help?

Jennifer Davis reports in a front-page story today that the city can’t use their fancy new electronic voting machines for the council primary and election because they can’t handle so-called “bullet voting”:

The new electronic voting machines that the city spent millions on last year can’t count cumulative votes at the precincts, which is required by state law.

Peoria has a rather unique style of cumulative voting that only occurs every four years during at-large council elections. Voters can give all five votes to one candidate; or one each to five; or some combination in between. Some say it is that so-called “bullet provision” which makes our cumulative voting unlike any other nationwide.

Before the city and county went to electronic voting machines, they used a paper ballot which was counted with optical scan equipment. The difference between the county and the city, however, was that the county counted the votes at the precinct level — that is, they had counting machines at each polling place — whereas the city took all the ballots to the main election office and counted them all centrally. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires that votes be counted at the precinct level, not centrally.

So, the question I have (and I haven’t called anyone to ask) is what happened to the machines the county used to use? Did they sell them? If they still have them, are they capable of counting cumulative votes? If so, could the city borrow them for their city council election, if there are enough to cover all the polling places?

I just wonder if this is a case where the city’s cooperation with the county would help, instead of having to go to the state to get special legislation passed.

I also wonder why this is just being discovered now, mere months before the city council election. Who dropped the ball on that one? One would think the election commission would have had the ability to count cumulative votes as a basic requirement of any new voting machine they considered; even if they couldn’t find any machines that offered that functionality, why was no back-up plan put in place? Now, all their hopes are pinned on passing emergency legislation.

Copley’s Obama poll question ambiguous

Senator Barack ObamaThe Journal Star’s headline says, “Voters signal Obama support,” but that’s debatable. Dana Heupel of Copley News Service writes:

In the statewide survey, taken Monday and Tuesday, 59 percent of those polled said they would cast their ballots for the Illinois senator if he were the Democratic candidate for president. Twenty-eight percent said they would not, and 13 percent were unsure.

Yet, right above the article in the paper edition of the PJS, it reprints the actual poll question:

QUESTION: If Obama was the Democratic Party candidate for president in 2008, would you consider voting for him or not?

To “consider” means, “think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision” (New Oxford American Dictionary, emphasis mine). In other words, to say you would “consider voting for” someone is not the same as saying you would actually cast your ballot for that person.

If you were to ask me if I would consider voting for Obama, I would say “yes,” because it depends on who else is running, what his platform is at the time, who his running mate would be, etc. I wouldn’t just dismiss him out of hand. But if you were to ask me whether or not I would likely cast my ballot for him, I would say “no.”

That’s why these polls are so tricky. It’s all in how you ask the question and interpret the results. The headline could just as easily have read “Poll: 28% wouldn’t even consider voting for Obama for President.”

Peoria voter error makes Time Magazine story

Time Magazine Nov 2006Peoria is getting some national press, but not in a flattering way. A story in the most recent issue of Time Magazine begins with this anecdote:

A woman walked into a polling place in Peoria, Ill. last week and proceeded to use one of the new electronic voting machines set up for early voting. She logged on, went through each contest and seemed to be making her choices. After reviewing each race, the machine checked to see if she was satisfied with her selections and wanted to move on. Each time, she pressed YES, and the machine progressed to the next race. When she was done, a waving American flag appeared on the screen, indicating that her votes had been cast and recorded.

But there was a problem. The woman had not made any choices at all. She had only browsed. Now when she told the election judges she was ready to do it again–but this time actually vote–they told her it was too late. Pressing the last button, they said, is like dropping your ballot in an old-fashioned ballot box. There’s no getting it back.

What does that story lead you to believe? When I first read it, it sounded like a voting machine malfunction to me. However, I called the county elections office and talked to John Ramsey. He explained that it was voter error. Apparently the woman misunderstood the instructions; there is no “browse” mode, so to speak, nor a “trial run” at the ballot. You choose your candidates and at the end, you are presented with a chance to review your choices. If you made a mistake and want to change one of your choices, you can go back and make changes. However, once you press the “Cast Ballot” button, your vote is cast and there is no turning back.

Time Magazine concludes:

In one week, more than 80 million Americans will go to the polls, and a record number of them–90%–will either cast their vote on a computer or have it tabulated that way. When that many people collide with that many high-tech devices, there are going to be problems. Some will be machine malfunctions. Some could come from sabotage by poll workers or voters themselves. But in a venture this large, trouble is most likely to come from just plain human error, a fact often overlooked in an environment as charged and conspiratorial as America is in today.

Time mentions Peoria one more time in the article, in this paragraph:

Perhaps the biggest fallacy in this debate is the notion that elections were perfect before Congress decided to hold them on computers. They weren’t. “Stuffing the ballot box” is not an expression from the world of fiction. The problem with overvoting punch cards existed for decades before the dateline PALM BEACH COUNTY became a household term. Peoria County clerk JoAnn Thomas says she routinely tossed out several hundred twice-punched ballots every year. That represents roughly 1% of all registered voters in her jurisdiction.

I called Ms. Thomas to ask her about the article. She hadn’t seen it yet, as it just came out online today. She explained that what the author (Michael Duffy) is describing is a woman who came in and accidentally cast a blank ballot. The voter had not marked any candidates, yet still pressed “Cast Ballot” at the end, apparently thinking that a blank ballot doesn’t count. But it does.

Technically, this is called “undervoting.” Many people undervote to a degree; for instance, if someone just wants to vote for President, but chooses not to vote in any of the other races. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from casting a completely blank ballot — one where they haven’t voted in any race at all — like the woman in the Time Magazine story.

While the new voting machines allow you to undervote (as did all prior voting methods, Thomas points out), it will not let you “overvote.” For example, you can’t mark Aaron Schock and Bill Spears on your ballot — the voting machine will only let you vote for one. That’s what Duffy was referring to when he said Thomas had thrown out hundreds of “twice-punched” ballots in the past. On the old ballots, if you overvoted, your vote for that race wasn’t counted at all. Now, you’re prevented from overvoting in the first place, so that’s no longer a problem.

The state requires a random sampling of precincts to be audited each election to make sure the voting machine vote total on the hard drive matches the total printed out on the paper receipts. Thomas confirmed that so far there had been no voting machine malfunctions, and the audits have come back perfect.

As long as I had her on the phone, I asked a couple other questions not directly related to the article. I found out that roughly 1,500 people in the county (not including the city) had already voted under the county’s early-voting initiative. She thought it was about the same number in the city, so she estimated that about 3,000 people had already voted in this election. She also confirmed that early voting costs more money and requires a fair amount of staff time to administer, but she won’t know totals until after the election.

I also found out that, contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to know how to spell a write-in candidate’s name exactly to have your vote count. As long as election judges can determine the voter’s intent, and as long as the name is an official write-in candidate (i.e., they’ve filed their paperwork), the vote counts. I’d still recommend knowing how to spell the write-in candidate’s name, just so there’s no confusion. Votes for Mickey Mouse or Elvis Presley aren’t counted, by the way.

Endorsement: Stufflebeam for Governor

I think it’s beyond dispute that no one is happy with the Democratic or Republican candidates for Governor. Rod Blagojevich is beset by scandal. Judy Barr Topinka is “Republican” in name only. Many are looking for an alternative candidate, and I’m no exception.

The obvious choice, some say, is Green Party candidate Rich Whitney, who’s actually on the ballot with Blagojevich and Topinka, even if they won’t let him debate them. I’ve checked out his platform and he does have some positions that I find attractive (for instance, he’s pro-rail, anti-gambling, and supports a moratorium on genetically-modified foods in his ag policy). However, most of his positions are what one could call “left of center.”

In fact, that’s my major problem with the governor’s race overall. It looks more like a Democratic primary than a general election. This is especially pronounced when it comes to so-called “family values” issues. All three candidates on the ballot agree: they’re all pro-choice and anti-marriage-amendment.

So, I find myself looking around and thinking, who else? Am I really going to have to hold my nose and vote for the least offensive candidate instead of someone I can genuinely support?
Randy Stufflebeam
As it turns out, there is another choice: Randy Stufflebeam. He’s a write-in candidate for governor on the Constitution Party ticket. Randy was born in Chicago, but raised downstate in Canton, Illinois. He served in the United States Marine Corp for over 22 years, retiring in 2003.

Some may be tempted to pigeonhole Randy as a typical evangelical Republican candidate. While he does support some traditionally Republican stances (pro-life, pro-family, pro-school-choice), you may be surprised to learn that he’s also against NAFTA, CAFTA, and other such agreements because he believes they ultimately hurt U.S. workers — Illinois farmers, to name just one example. That’s a predominantly Democratic position, and one with which I agree.

On an issue that perhaps strikes a little closer to home, Randy supports tort reform to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits; if doctors’ exposure to liability can be reduced, insurance rates would be lowered as a result, making health-care more affordable for everyone. To combat Illinois’ well-earned reputation for political corruption, Randy also has vowed not to take money from those doing business with the state of Illinois, and would eliminate no-bid contracts.

Do I agree with Stufflebeam’s stance on every issue? No. For example, I think his education plan doesn’t adequately address funding equity across affluent and poor communities. But do I agree with him on more issues than I agree with Blagojevich, Topinka, and Whitney? You bet. And really, who’s ever going to find a candidate with whom you’re in 100% agreement, unless you run for office yourself?

Some may view a vote for Stufflebeam as “throwing your vote away.” In one sense, that’s a fair criticism. I’m under no illusion that Stufflebeam — or any write-in candidate for that matter — is going to get much of a showing in this race. But on the other hand, if we all keep voting for one of the two major parties even when we think the candidates stink, I would contend that those votes are just as wasted. In both cases, you don’t get who you really want in office.

I’m not going to throw my vote away by voting for someone I can’t endorse. Thus, my endorsement goes to Randy Stufflebeam for Governor. He’s someone I can vote for.

Lane Evans will retire

WMBD-AM 1470 reports that U.S. Representative Lane Evans will not run for reelection due to his battle with Parkinson’s disease. He was diagnosed in 1995 and has been unable to work since February 14 of this year. He is 54.

He just won the nomination for another term in last Tuesday’s primary, so now the Democratic county chairmen in the 17th Congressional District will have to select a candidate to replace him on the November ballot. There’s no word on who that replacement will be, but whoever it is will be running against Republican Andrea Zinga, a former TV news anchor who ran for the same seat unsuccessfully in 2004, garnering 39% of the vote against the incumbent Evans.

The time has come for IRV

Voter turnout for Tuesday’s primary was dismally low. Polly is incensed, and I agree with her. There’s no excuse for the 82% (85% county-wide) of registered voters who did not make it to the polls. As far as I’m concerned, not voting is like spitting on a veteran’s grave. All those men and women fought and worked and died in many and various wars to preserve our freedoms, but you — you can’t even walk or drive a couple of blocks to a polling place?

I’m going to talk about some flaws in our election system, but don’t get the idea that these flaws are an excuse not to vote. They aren’t. I don’t care how disaffected you feel, blowing off your civic duty is not a solution or some courageous form of protest. It’s a cop-out. You’re part of the problem.

Nevertheless, I think some election reform is in order.

Our current voting system is “winner-takes-all.” Thus, in the Republican primary, even though Judy Barr Topinka didn’t win a majority of the votes cast, she won with a plurality, a mere 37.7%. Before the election, Oberweis was running ads saying “a vote for anyone but Oberweis is a vote for Topinka,” and that was sadly true (although one could have said that about any of Topinka’s rivals). But why should we be limited? 62.3% of Republican voters didn’t want Topinka, but she wins under our winner-takes-all system.

It doesn’t have to be that way. It would be fairer and more democratic for Illinois to implement Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. Under this system, voters get to rank the candidates in order of their preference (first choice, second choice, etc.). If one candidate gets over 50% of first-choice votes, he or she wins. If no candidate gets a majority, then an “instant runoff” takes place.

Here’s how an instant runoff works: The candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated. Those who voted for that candidate as their first choice then have their votes distributed to their second choice candidate. Then the votes are tabulated again to see if any of the remaining candidates now have a majority. This process repeats until one candidate has a majority of the votes. There’s a good multimedia explanation of how this voting system works here (requires Flash plugin).

Doesn’t that sound fairer? I like it because you could vote for that underdog you really like the best without throwing away your vote. Wouldn’t all you disaffected voters feel more motivated to go to the polls under this type of system?

Of course, to get legislation adopted that will allow for IRV, you’d need to (*ahem*) vote for candidates under our current system that will propose and pass such legislation.

Report: New Voting Machines

I used one of the new voting machines today after work. I found the machine itself easy to use, and don’t have any complaints about it. It was actually quite intuitive. I imagine that older people and others who aren’t as computer-literate as I might take a little longer to have a good comfort-level with this new machine. But, overall, I don’t think there’s much of a learning curve.

I don’t know if this is the way my new precinct has always been or if this has to do with the new machines, but I noticed that the line went pretty slowly. There were only maybe four to six people there to vote, but it took about 15 minutes to go through the line. It never took me more than 5 minutes to vote at my old precinct, under the old system. Anyone else experience delays compared to past primaries?

I still maintain that there was nothing wrong with the old system, and that this was a case of solving a problem that didn’t exist.