Mayor Versus Governor.

[warren]

I thought, in Illinois, the Governor is usually selected by the Chicago voters, casting their ballot according to the Party. There have been anamolies where the rural areas and small towns have infrequently elected a republican but, Madigan isn't in Springfield without Chicago sayso. Joe Kennedy only needed Chicago not the entire State.

Granted that Springfield, indeed even Chicago, isn't as secure as when a Daily was running the machine.


The American Civil War, and Lincoln, pretty much toned down the "Federalism" and centralized the government. Old Abe basically told the Supreme Court to gather up their army if they wanted him to obey their dictates. He basically thumbed his nose and said, "Make me!' The Court discovered that even if they armed every clerk and janitor in the building they were sadly out gunned. So, the justices left the running of the country and the war to Lincoln and, a very argumentative/revengeful and, recalcitrant Congress.

The American Civil War, and Lincoln, is what turned the US from a federation of states into a singular country with strong central government which included a draft, expanded powers of taxation, suspension of habeas corpus, and so forth.. Even the the most set in their ways, "Federalists", have to admit that little attention is paid to "the rights of the States" with regard to powers reserved for D.C. and all others to the States. Federalism is, these days, a term beloved by some but not really in existence. Democratic Republic is another quickly becoming obsolete term.

Today the Judicial Branch is the most powerful of the three branches because the Congress has decided it to be politically expedient to let the Justices make law on "hard" questions which they do not want to risk voting on. Is this good? Bad? I have my opinion. I'll reserve it though. We the people have the government we, you, I and our neighbors vote for and tolerate. And, that is really all that matters. Franklin was right and ... we couldn't keep it.

 

[Old School 3319]

I thought, in Illinois, the Governor is usually selected by the Chicago voters, casting their ballot according to the Party. There have been anamolies where the rural areas and small towns have infrequently elected a republican but, Madigan isn't in Springfield without Chicago sayso. Joe Kennedy only needed Chicago not the entire State.

Granted that Springfield, indeed even Chicago, isn't as secure as when a Daily was running the machine.


The American Civil War, and Lincoln, pretty much toned down the "Federalism" and centralized the government. Old Abe basically told the Supreme Court to gather up their army if they wanted him to obey their dictates. He basically thumbed his nose and said, "Make me!' The Court discovered that even if they armed every clerk and janitor in the building they were sadly out gunned. So, the justices left the running of the country and the war to Lincoln and, a very argumentative/revengeful and, recalcitrant Congress.

The American Civil War, and Lincoln, is what turned the US from a federation of states into a singular country with strong central government which included a draft, expanded powers of taxation, suspension of habeas corpus, and so forth.. Even the the most set in their ways, "Federalists", have to admit that little attention is paid to "the rights of the States" with regard to powers reserved for D.C. and all others to the States. Federalism is, these days, a term beloved by some but not really in existence. Democratic Republic is another quickly becoming obsolete term.

Today the Judicial Branch is the most powerful of the three branches because the Congress has decided it to be politically expedient to let the Justices make law on "hard" questions which they do not want to risk voting on. Is this good? Bad? I have my opinion. I'll reserve it though. We the people have the government we, you, I and our neighbors vote for and tolerate. And, that is really all that matters. Franklin was right and ... we couldn't keep it.

The system when it works is great but when you put crooked and greedy people in the mix it doesn't. My father right before he died said the next election he will finally vote democrat. He is probably right. We have tried to leave Chicago but it never works. I control what I can and don't worry about the rest. Don't mess with me or mine and its all good

 

[Bowie]

Very interesting Perdurabo. If I might ask another question, from what I understand, your system is a two party system so does this mean that if say the Governor of X state is a democrat would the Mayor also have to be a democrat?

I'm guessing not bit I can't be sure.

Regards,

Jay.

Jay - Just to confuse matters, many municipal offices are non-partisan, so some mayors - like the mayor of Houston, Texas - are not elected as a Democrat/Republican/Independent. In reality though, when running for office, they seek endorsements of a party that they personally affiliate with, so voters do actually know if a candidate is a D/R/I.

 

[mawnansmiff]

Perhaps it's time for me to watch Ken Burns 'Congress' DVD again and pay more attention!

Thanks guy for taking the time to educate me, it's much appreciated.

Regards,

Jay.

 

[haparnold]

Here’s my own attempt to summarize the situation in American politics:

Like in any nation of sufficient size, the dynamics on paper are relatively straightforward and simple. However, operationalizing these theories makes things complicated.

The real source of tension between the governor of New York State and the mayor of New York City is that NYC is so large and important to the state as a whole. Nobody thinks the mayor of, say, Dickson Tennessee (a small city) can dictate terms to the governor of the state. But the mayor of a major city like Nashville or Memphis might be in a better position to exert pressure of various kinds.

Also, huge congrats to all of you for the civility and on-topic-ness so far! Great question, Jay.

 

[Old School 3319]

Here’s my own attempt to summarize the situation in American politics:

Like in any nation of sufficient size, the dynamics on paper are relatively straightforward and simple. However, operationalizing these theories makes things complicated.

The real source of tension between the governor of New York State and the mayor of New York City is that NYC is so large and important to the state as a whole. Nobody thinks the mayor of, say, Dickson Tennessee (a small city) can dictate terms to the governor of the state. But the mayor of a major city like Nashville or Memphis might be in a better position to exert pressure of various kinds.

Also, huge congrats to all of you for the civility and on-topic-ness so far! Great question, Jay.

Beautiful city of Dickson

 

[mawnansmiff]

Thanks for that Haparnold, a simplified answer to the (perhaps) unique situation in New York though I can see how it would apply to other large cities as you point out.

Regards,

Jay.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

In the south at least Alabama again to complicate the matter, our sheriffs run as democrats... although they probably vote republican and are conservatives. This causes much confusion as people think if they vote in a democratic primary they must vote for democrats across the board. It has nothing to do with that, but if you want to vote for sheriff in my county you must vote in the democratic primary as there probably will not be a republican on the ticket. In some states you must vote in either one or the other, basically you can't vote in 2 different primary elections. In Alabama this is not the case, but there is much confusion around this topic. This confusion can drastically affect voter turnout for these types of elections.

 

[seldom]

Most surprising of all was that the (any State) Governor can't easily be overruled by the President, but thinking about it from a historical perspective, the US is of course a federation of States, each with their own autonomy so I suppose that makes sense.

We started as a country with strong state autonomy but the American Civil War really changed that. I think we are still sorting this out. Here is a quote from historian James M. McPherson:

The United States went to war in 1861 to preserve the Union; it emerged from the war in 1865 having created a nation. Before 1861 the two words "United States" were generally used as a plural noun: "the United States are a republic." After 1865 the United States became a singular noun. The loose union of states became a single nation. Lincoln’s wartime speeches marked this transition. In his first inaugural address he mentioned the "Union" 20 times but the "nation" not once. In his first message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln used the word Union 32 times and nation only three times. But in his Gettysburg Address in November 1863 he did not mention the Union at all, but spoke of the nation five times to invoke a new birth of freedom and nationhood.

 

[pappymac]

In the south at least Alabama again to complicate the matter, our sheriffs run as democrats... although they probably vote republican and are conservatives. This causes much confusion as people think if they vote in a democratic primary they must vote for democrats across the board. It has nothing to do with that, but if you want to vote for sheriff in my county you must vote in the democratic primary as there probably will not be a republican on the ticket. In some states you must vote in either one or the other, basically you can't vote in 2 different primary elections. In Alabama this is not the case, but there is much confusion around this topic. This confusion can drastically affect voter turnout for these types of elections.

I actually understand this. It's like in New Orleans where there has seldom been a republican win the election for Mayor. The democrats have convinced the majority of the population in New Orleans that they won't get welfare if the republicans are in office.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

I actually understand this. It's like in New Orleans where there has seldom been a republican win the election for Mayor. The democrats have convinced the majority of the population in New Orleans that they won't get welfare if the republicans are in office.

I'm really not sure what causes it. It's really only with Sheriffs as far as I know here. In the old days here our politics were dominated by conservative Democrats, an almost extinct creature, other than our Sheriffs. That creature may have existed here because of the reason you mentioned. Most of our people in the rural places here have been propped up by welfare since F.D.R. It has gone by many other names than walfare, I think regardless of their political views people in the rural south knew they needed it to get by. Example: Wallace was a Democrat

 

[mawnansmiff]

Seldom, thanks for that. Tomorrow I shall look up this Mr. McPherson and see if he has anything published that might tickle my fancy.

I have quite a library now on American and Canadian history but I can always find room for another interesting historical author.

Regards,

Jay.

 

[warren]

In my town, Anchorage, candidates for municipal level sinecure are prohibited from identifying their party affiliation. So one must listen carefully to what they say with regard to fiscal management, whether homeless people are really homeless, note the color of their roadside ads (red =republican, blue = democrat) and so forth. Now, as long as the candidate doesn't lie to you, is honest in all publications, then perhaps a voter can make an informed decision. Another bunch of reasons why I do not vote for anything that eats and/or breathes in muni elections. I restrict my vote to fiscal matters because, as a property owner, I pay the bonds off with my tax.

 

[perdurabo]

This paved the way for the Progressive era that inspired Europe.

We started as a country with strong state autonomy but the American Civil War really changed that. I think we are still sorting this out. Here is a quote from historian James M. McPherson:

The United States went to war in 1861 to preserve the Union; it emerged from the war in 1865 having created a nation. Before 1861 the two words "United States" were generally used as a plural noun: "the United States are a republic." After 1865 the United States became a singular noun. The loose union of states became a single nation. Lincoln’s wartime speeches marked this transition. In his first inaugural address he mentioned the "Union" 20 times but the "nation" not once. In his first message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln used the word Union 32 times and nation only three times. But in his Gettysburg Address in November 1863 he did not mention the Union at all, but spoke of the nation five times to invoke a new birth of freedom and nationhood.