Chicago's Special Election is a Waste: Fill Vacancies in One Election, Not Two

Today's special general election between Mike Quigley, Rosanna Pulido and Matt Reichel is a waste of time, money and resources. Taxpayers will shell out almost two million dollars to hold an election in the state's 5th Congressional District with only three names on the ballot. And the result of the election - the Democratic nominee is going to win - has been a foregone conclusion for a month.

The seat has been vacant since January. Meanwhile, during the debate on the federal stimulus and budget, the 600,000 people of the 5th CD have been without a voice in the House. That's not good, because we have literally lost our seat at the congressional table while federal policy is made. Our election laws should fill a vacancy as quickly as possible to minimize the loss of our political clout.

In this case, the people spoke clearly last month in the primary election: they want a Democrat to represent them in the House.

Look at the numbers from the March 3rd primary: Mike Quigley, Democrat, earned 12,118 votes. Rosanna Pulido, Republican, earned 1,006 while Matt Reichel, Green, earned 166. That's 91% for Quigley, 8% for Pulido and 1% for Reichel. That's a landslide. So why are we going through the motion of another election today between these three people when Quigley has already earned 91% of the vote last month? Why can't we give the people what they already voted for?

Illinois should fill a congressional vacancy in one election, not two, particularly when the results are so clear. There are several ways to do it. We could replicate Chicago's municipal elections where there is a runoff only if no candidate earns a majority of the vote. We could count a vote in the primary election as a straight ticket vote in the general election for whoever the nominee will be. Or we could use Irish-style instant runoff voting where voters rank all the candidates.

But whatever the method, we should absolutely not continue to waste two million dollars and minimize our own clout by waiting a month to finally elect a Representative in a second election when we could get the job done in one day.

Dan Johnson-Weinberger is an attorney. He lobbies for election reforms for FairVote.

Comments

[SiSePuede08]

California does what we do for municipal elections in their Congressional Specials, requiring a General Election only if no primary candidate gets a majority of the vote. So it can be changed here in our local laws. It is not required federally to have a Primary and then a General.

[ncvoter]

Illinois can barely count single votes now, and you want them to complicate elections with an election method that is NOT ADDITIVE and there is NO federal software to tabluate the votes?

Instant Runoff Voting is a misleading term, the only thing instant is you are being asked to make your decisions before you have all the facts, including who will end up in the runoff.

IRV increases election costs on a regular base, you will need new voting machines, print more ballots, hire more staff, spend more money on voter education, have to rewrite policies and guidlins, train poll workers. spend more on software and maintenance.

IRV fails to provide a majority result most of the time. In almost all IRV elections in the US, the results were plurallity, winner take all.

With IRV, you make it harder for the little guy to get heard, its all about name recognition.

In the countries that have used IRV for long periods of time, there are two parties tightly entrenched, except in Ireland, where its virtually a single party rule.

See www.instan­trunoffvot­ing.us for more

[LeftRight]

Instant runoff voting!! Let's get that one, I'm so tired of having to actually throw my vote away when the person that I WANT to vote for can't even qualify to be on the ballot in the next election!