Mayoral Runoff Election Dilemma (Chicago: design, budget, mayor)

[fusillirob1983]

Originally Posted by carnelian

What other good job could you get without the work experience
and/or educational level (if that matters) for the position?

Most of the President's administration, too.

[Nodpete]

Originally Posted by carnelian

So now that Lightfood won, Illinois has a mayor with
no experience at all for the job, a governor with no
elected experience, and of course
a questionable president with none. I wonder what other states or cities
are similar to this?

Are we entering a new trend to vote and hire government
bosses without the minimal qualifications and experience?
What other good job could you get without the work experience
and/or educational level (if that matters) for the position?

Apparently, voters don't seem to care about qualifications.

This is exactly what's wrong with politics, the clowns in office are nothing BUT a politician ! They have no concept of how to run a business (City) efficiently. It's time to elect qualified business people to office. Investors buy stock in a company because they believe that it will make a profit. In politics, nobody cares if the money is used wisely, just that it's handed out to right people to win their vote. Government does not produce a single thing to make money, they just use yours to their benefit. All an 'experienced' politician does is line their pockets. That's why term limits must be put in place so nobody can control the purse strings like Burke, etc.

[flamadiddle]

Originally Posted by carnelian

So now that Lightfood won, Illinois has a mayor with
no experience at all for the job, a governor with no
elected experience, and of course
a questionable president with none. I wonder what other states or cities
are similar to this?

Are we entering a new trend to vote and hire government
bosses without the minimal qualifications and experience?
What other good job could you get without the work experience
and/or educational level (if that matters) for the position?

Apparently, voters don't seem to care about qualifications.

That's because "politicians" have failed us miserably.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by carnelian

So now that Lightfood won, Illinois has a mayor with
no experience at all for the job, a governor with no
elected experience, and of course
a questionable president with none. I wonder what other states or cities
are similar to this?

Are we entering a new trend to vote and hire government
bosses without the minimal qualifications and experience?
What other good job could you get without the work experience
and/or educational level (if that matters) for the position?

Apparently, voters don't seem to care about qualifications.

Giuliani and Bloomberg didn't have any elected experience and oversaw a resurgence of New York. Say what you will about Giuliani of today, until about 2003 he walked on water across the political spectrum.

Riordan in Los Angeles had no prior experience experience having been a lawyer and investment banker. He led LA back after the Rodney King riots and helped get their crime under control.

All three of those examples ran as Republicans. Lightfoot didn't, but the Republican Party practically doesn't exist here, and she's probably similar in many ways to the kind of Republican Bloomberg was.

In other words, your obsession with experience is simply unwarranted.

[Hiruko]

Originally Posted by emathias

Giuliani and Bloomberg didn't have any elected experience and oversaw a resurgence of New York. Say what you will about Giuliani of today, until about 2003 he walked on water across the political spectrum.

Riordan in Los Angeles had no prior experience experience having been a lawyer and investment banker. He led LA back after the Rodney King riots and helped get their crime under control.

All three of those examples ran as Republicans. Lightfoot didn't, but the Republican Party practically doesn't exist here, and she's probably similar in many ways to the kind of Republican Bloomberg was.

In other words, your obsession with experience is simply unwarranted.

I agree with much of what you have said here, but a key difference between Chicago and New York City and Los Angeles is that New York City and Los Angeles have strong-mayor systems. Chicago has a weak-mayor system. Mayor of Chicago is a job that requires more political skill to strongarm the aldermen to effect change.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Hiruko

I agree with much of what you have said here, but a key difference between Chicago and New York City and Los Angeles is that New York City and Los Angeles have strong-mayor systems. Chicago has a weak-mayor system. Mayor of Chicago is a job that requires more political skill to strongarm the aldermen to effect change.

This is simply not true.

[Hiruko]

Originally Posted by emathias

This is simply not true.

It most certainly is. Perhaps you need to go back to an encyclopedia or a civics course? Chicago has a "weak-mayor." LA and New York City have "strong-mayors."

[wase4711]

Originally Posted by emathias

Giuliani and Bloomberg didn't have any elected experience and oversaw a resurgence of New York. Say what you will about Giuliani of today, until about 2003 he walked on water across the political spectrum.

Riordan in Los Angeles had no prior experience experience having been a lawyer and investment banker. He led LA back after the Rodney King riots and helped get their crime under control.

All three of those examples ran as Republicans. Lightfoot didn't, but the Republican Party practically doesn't exist here, and she's probably similar in many ways to the kind of Republican Bloomberg was.

In other words, your obsession with experience is simply unwarranted.

I guess we'll see how your theory plays out if Kanye or The Rock get elected some day..

[ipkl07]

The decision has been made. Lightfoot it is

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Hiruko

It most certainly is. Perhaps you need to go back to an encyclopedia or a civics course? Chicago has a "weak-mayor." LA and New York City have "strong-mayors."

Either cite a source or go look up what a "strong-mayor" system of government is and report back. I thought perhaps is missed something, so I did (re) investigate the definition of a strong Mayor system and whether Chicago had such a system. Multiple places categorize Chicago's system as a strong Mayor system.

For reference, the alternatives are generally considered to be council-manager, city commission, or some hybrid. All of the largest cities in the US have a strong Mayor system. One of the largest without such a system is actually my hometown of Portland, Oregon, which is still primarily run by commissioners. There is an active debate there right now about whether to change that.

But beyond the technical definition of systems of government, mostly due to the Daleys, Chicago is considered to have some of the most influential Mayors in the history of the country, just as a practical matter.

Now, it is true that with the departure is Rahm, and the weakening of the Machine, many talking heads are predicting that the next Mayor will be weak for any number of purely political reasons. But that's conjecture, and will rely a lot on how (now) Lightfoot plays her cards, not on some structural aspect of Chicago's system of government. Lori has read her Chicago history, and appears ready to fight any attempt by the Council to stage any "Council Wars 2" revolt. Given Burke's weakness and Lori's experience as a prosecutor (and the fact that race relations have made progress in the past 30 years), I would place better than even odds in her ability to control the Council far more effectively than Harold Washington was able to.