No No on ConCon

Illinois_seal.pngDan Johnson Weinburger makes the case for a ConCon but I remain unconvinced. As he portrays it, it's all upside and no downside. If there are any doubts, Dan argues, it's ultimately "we the citizens" who are in the driver's seat.

I think Dan is wrong. I don't think it's "we the citizens" who'll be in the driver's seat. I think it'll just be that tiny minority of our population who get off on the minutiae of government. Most people have better things to do.

The whole purpose of representative government is that you elect people who then go on and work out the details. You re-visit your decision every two or four years. You even have the right, should you so choose, to keep on sending the same people to represent you year after year free of any term limit.

Advocates of initiative, recall and term limits call their policies extensions of democracy. But in fact what they're doing is exposing the wrong parts of the process to popular approval. It guarantees low turnout or decisions based on whatever special interest has the bigger advertising budget.

Dan calls this the "politics of fear versus the politics of hope". I would call it the politics of bad versus the politics of worse.

Issue: