" Agreed. Make smart choices about who you vote for and deal with it -- it's called being part of a representative democracy, or a republic.

What some people really want is a direct democracy. They want to approve or disapprove every action a legislator makes and/or recall any politican who doesn't make them happy. No politican will make everyone happy all of the time. There is another word for direct democracy -- anarchy. "

" Which states model our constitution? How many of them, are also bankrupt, and in deadlock in their government?

The late sixties, and early seventies, was a politicly not so good time, to clearly shape and form important documents like this. If you don't want a convention, some amendments should have been put up for votes, for the public to fix some of these continual issues we face, in the last fourty years they have been going on.

They can't blame the crisis in the state, on current national economic issues. Its been a problem, since the seventies. Pinpoint the issues keeping government from working, and functiong fairly. Promise precise amendments, to fix specific issues, and get them on the next possible ballot. Things will undoubtedly worsen, with addiional outside forces acting on the quagmire they accumulated, but it has been a muttled mess for some time.

Somethings are deffinately very broken, with our constitution. We can't wait 20 more years, to see if it just fixes its self. We can't rely on the state legislature, to fixe the issues, when they seem to enjoy being consumed constantly in complete bedlam, imbroglio and chaos.

We don't need to be paying part time govt employees, in the legislature, any more than the average base sallary of a new teacher.

We deffinately don't need to be yearly giving substancial raises to any elected officials. They ran for the office, it has a very generous sallary, you get the pay you ran for, in my opinion. We might give 3 percent increases, every other term, but this going into politics as a money hungry career choice, needs to be headed off.

How many folks, can completely fail at their jobs, mismanage millions or billions of dollars, and not only keep their jobs, but vote to give themselves nice big raises yearly?

It was possibly a corrupt convention, when this one was written, I would say. The former doccument might have been outdated, but it likely didn't allow this kind of nonsense, we have seen take hold of this state, in the last fourty years.

I believe the last convention proposal, had a simmilar controversy, to the wording. Its part of the ploy, to keep it from being tightened up any. They like the freedom to play loose, fast, and free to do what they want, when they want, all at the taxpayers expense. It is free money they deal with.

We can't afford not to have the leaking loopholes, holding this state back, fixed for another twenty years. We faced simmilar situations in 1990, as we do now. No amendments were put to the ballot to fix constant issues. No amendment were put through the legislature, to shore the doccument up either.

I would say the last convention, was strongly represented by special interests. Look at the footholds they have, in springfield now. It might well be mostly them, not wanting a more aware and educated public, to possibly shape this instrument right, and limit their access to thier piece of the process pies.

Somethings got to give soon. Be it a convention, or individual amendments. The possible cost, outweighs the risks we face for continuing to do nothing. Look at the money they skimmed, to try to save budget cuts. Its twice at least, the cost of holding the lets see what happens convention. We have to make that skimmed money up, plus the interest it would have made. We can no longer afford to continue to trust the leaders to handle their business, and police themselves.

Rights under the federal constitution, can't be stripped by a state one. Dispite sensationalist claims, made by opponents to this measure.

Decide for your selves, are government bodies in this state functioning in any conceiveble capacity? If not, why? What is the best way, to fix the why? Can we trust the legislature to do it themselves? "

" We seem to have a Constitution that was assembled in a less contentious time and one that seems to work.
Let's not start over to rebuild something that may turn out to be the Titanic. "

" Locke wrote:"What some people really want is a direct democracy. They want to approve or disapprove every action a legislator makes and/or recall any politican who doesn't make them happy."
True.
But this would indeed be a disaster. I'm quite familiar with the situation in Colorado where it is very easy to put amendments to their Constitution on the ballot. So they had TABOR (Taxpayer's
Bill of Rights) limiting taxation; about the same time they passed an amendment that required the legislature to ADD more money to the public schools.
This fall they have, as I recall, about 15 amendments to the Constitution to vote on, and some are quite complex. Papers are advising people to READ them ahead of time, for otherwise people will be occupying a voting booth for half an hour trying to read and decide. One of the propositions would essentially eliminate TABOR. TABOR forced the state to return to taxpayers "overpayments" in income taxes when times were rich and people had actually paid more than required by the TABOR "formula". Now people seem to be wishing they had repaired schools, roads, etc. when they had the money in hand and according to polls are ready to abolish TABOR. "

" Yes, Judi, I too wondered why the newspaper article didn't explain what the wrong information was on the ballot too. Don't you think it would have been better to actually inform the public PRIOR to the election what exactly is wrong with it so we can make an educated decision? "

" I haven't seen any compelling reasons to vote for a new constitutional convention. Besides a pricetag of $80 - $100 million dollars at a time when the state is in a financial crisis, it is my understanding that the same people in power who can't get things accomplished in Springfield would also have the reins of power for writing a new constitution. Why do we need to dismantle our constitution when we already have the power to amend it, and have indeed done so many times in the past 100 years.

I would encourage others to vote NO on the con-con (constitutional convention) initiative. Vote against being "conned" into something expensive that we don't need. "

" i think our constitution sucks but i'm not letting rod get his hands on it "

" The main reason they want to rewrite the constitution is to get at pensions, everybodys pension. If you have a pension you must not vote for a new constitution. The Gov wants to change the laws that protect our pensions so he can get at that money. It dosen't matter if you are a teacher, cop, firefighter, state IDOT, or anything, if you have a pension it will be at risk. No tellin what else the Gov has in mind. What other reason would there be to rewrite it other than money "

" Google: Illinois constitution changes 1970

Most of what we have is over a hundred years old. Likely most of any revised doccument, will be more original, than new.

Rod has no say, and involvement in a convention.

In 1970, they changed very little. It is the fourth constitution of this state, and one change they did make, was that every 20 years, it is automaticly put up for referendum, to hold a convention. They realized changing times require increased possibilities to correct out of date constitutional amendments. It was difficult to get a convention, on the ballot at all, when it finally went on in 69.

Usually in election issues, its the folks screaming the most outrage over something you have to be more wary of. Status quoe holding groups, don't want to risk loosing their leverage in this state.

Convention members are elected, and their final changes get put up for an up or down vote.

Look at the facts, and look at every level of government in this state. Can we trust the folks in government to fix issues that have increasingly grown, for decades, or do some changes need to be made, to force their hands, in specific directions.

Federally guaranteed rights, cannot be stripped by a state constitution.

Investing a hundred million, compared to the figures governments on every level in this state waste every year, is a sound investment.

Springfield has had decades to turn this state around. They would rather chase their tails, charge special session overtime, be paid for living expenses and commuting to work, while giving themselves raises, and still not pass balanced budgets. Ultimately holding parks, programs and constantly the taxpayers hostage, for them not being capable of doing the jobs they are elected to do.

We really can't afford 20 more years of ensured stagnation in this state. It has increased dramaticly, in the last 20 years, since the first convention went to a vote.

Consider the facts, and rationalize the fear and doom advertizing. Folks who like the way things are here, would be the most scared to see their corners on the markets put up for competition fairly.

The Late sixties,and early seventies were not good times in poliics, or many peoples mind sets. Citizens today, have more information accessable, and can make much better informed decisions. We can easily look at constitutions around the world, throughout its history now. Take the items that fit our current and foreseeable needs and craft them into our states rules for governing. This state needs binding changes, forcing the way they have grown fond of doing business to change. Accountability, responsibility, and integrity, need to be made the cornerstone of government on all levels.

Look at what we have, what they changed in 1970, and the few subsequent ammendments, and see if it represents what you think our state should be held accountable to. This is a good time for citizens to try, instead of doing nothing. Trying, gives us a say, three times. Doing nothing, leaves it completely up to entrenched politicians, and their controlling special interests, for at least the next twenty years. "

" i hope your right mike p, i agree though "