Democrat Daniel Biss Supports Term Limits for Legistlative Leaders

Capitol Fax is reported this week that State Senator Daniel Biss, running for Governor as a Democrat, has adopted the proposal that I set forth on the day I announced my 2002 candidacy for Governor on the Libertarian Party ticket:

Term Limits for Leaders

“Term Limits for Legislative Leaders, 1800-SHAKE-UP”reads the sign used on the day Cal Skinner announced his 2002 Libertarian Party campaign for Governor.

Here’s what Biss had to say:

Term limits for leadership: Rather than allowing the Senate President, Speaker of the House, and minority party leaders to consolidate power over years and even decades, we must implement term limits to encourage the flow of new ideas and restore power to rank-and-file legislators.

Fifteen years ago it was obvious to me that the problem with Illinois government was the ossification of leaders in the Illinois General Assembly.

Can everyone spell M-I-K-E M-A-D-I-G-A-N?

Anyone think Illinois would not be better off if he was not House Speaker?

Biss has other suggestions as well, including a return to proportional representation, which he identifies ad “rank order voting.”

Pat Qunn’s “Cutback Amendment” abolished that in 1992.

Biss gets off a good line in the video linked in the article:

Do we want to have elections or auctions?


Democrat Daniel Biss Supports Term Limits for Legistlative Leaders — 14 Comments

  1. He hallucinates that this issue will propel him past the billionaires like Rauner, Pritzker and Kennedy.

    Has he been imbibing on opium, LSD or Pat Quinn’s maunderings?

  2. Those in support of term limits for clown, paparazzi, freeloader, sunshine bloggers, please say aye. Tic, tock, tic, tock…

  3. A Democrat FOR term limits in Illinois ?

    Beware the “bait and switch” routine.


  5. Low – Info / Low – I.Q. voter who posts here for our collective entertainment.

  6. ‘Doodie’ sounds like Bobby Miller or a member of his extended crime-family to me!

    I heard (second hand) that he blames Cal for his upending.

    Bobby’s spleen-venting allegedly used many expletives too disturbing for the gentle readers of this blog (Fallen Angel Lazoda, excluded)

    I’ll believe this ultra-leftist Bliss when he term-limits himself from infecting the ILL. Senate with his LGBT slime.

    The Jewish Biss took a notorious homosexual running mate to try and ‘out-progressive’ Kennedy and Pritzker.

    But alas, Biss had to bag the deviant he chose bc of naughty (but never specified) remarks about poor little Israel.

  7. **Biss has other suggestions as well, including a return to proportional representation, which he identifies ad “rank order voting.”**

    No… these are not the same thing.

  8. They aren’t the same thing, at all.

    Proportional representation is where each party gets a proportion of representation based on the proportion of votes case. So, if you had, say, 5 member districts, each party would get representation based on the % of the vote. If the Dems won 80% and the GOP won 20%, the Dems would get 4 seats and the GOP 1 seat.

    Rank order voting is when you can rank candidates. So, for example, in last year’s presidential race, people could have ranked their selections with McMillian, Trump, Clinton. If McMillan didn’t win, those votes then go to Trump. This allows for more choices and legitimate third party and independent candidates. This also takes away the “but she can’t win” argument – in the Dem primary, for example, everyone thinks its JB’s race, so other candidates aren’t getting as much support even though voters tend to like them more. So in a rank order voting system, they could, say, vote Biss, Pawar, Pritzker, Kennedy, and their votes would be counted in more sustantial ways. If Biss wins, your vote goes to Biss, but if Biss is eliminated, then the vote goes to Pawar, and so on.

    (And, yes, I know that Pawar has already dropped out)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.