Creating an Illinois Republic: A Thought Exercise for the Land of Lincoln

I’ve wanted to write about this subject for a while and keep getting sidetracked. My goal has always been a genuine thought exercise — exploring ideas about Illinois governance without claiming to have all the answers. I’ve enlisted help refining these thoughts so I can better articulate why certain changes feel worth considering.

I’ve been using the word Republic a lot more deliberately. The U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government. That guarantee is not just formal language; it is a commitment to representative self-rule, accountability, and government that exists for the public good. One aim of this exercise is to find ways of making Illinois a more distinctive state — a place people would actively choose to live, work, and build their futures.

We should not be proud of corruption or of functioning as a one-party state. Illinois ought to stand alongside states like California, New York, Florida, and Texas in terms of confidence and civic pride. California’s flag still proclaims “California Republic.” Texas was once an independent republic and carries that history with unmistakable pride. Both states have turned identity into energy. I want to explore what an Illinois Republic could mean — not as a name change on paper, but as an aspirational frame that strengthens representation, competition, and shared ownership of our state.

Some states have chosen a related but distinct word to express similar ideals of self-government. Four U.S. states officially refer to themselves as a Commonwealth: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. They adopted the term during their early constitutional periods. “Commonwealth” draws from an older English tradition meaning a political community organized for the common good — the “common weal.” In practice today there is no legal difference between a commonwealth and any other state. The word was chosen to emphasize that government exists for the people rather than for a monarch or privileged few. It is a proud, historical declaration of self-governance.

Why prefer Republic for Illinois rather than Commonwealth? Both terms point toward government for the public good. Commonwealth stresses shared welfare. Republic more directly highlights elected representation, the rejection of hereditary rule, and the active role of citizens through institutions. For the Land of Lincoln — a state whose most famous son defined government as “of the people, by the people, for the people” — Republic feels like the clearer link to the constitutional tradition we already inherit and to the competitive, responsive governance this thought exercise hopes to imagine.

This series will continue as an open exploration. Some ideas will feel practical. Others may seem more ambitious. The point is to think together about how Illinois can live up more fully to its republican foundations and become a place that inspires lasting pride.

What does a stronger republican Illinois look like to you? Which aspects of our state’s identity and history should guide that vision?

What a Governor’s Job Really Looks Like: Lessons from the Bears Stadium Debate

Source: DesignYourWay.net

Rich Miller’s column from two Sundays ago, shared via Capitol Fax, pulls back the curtain on what effective governing actually requires — and why Governor JB Pritzker’s handling of the Chicago Bears stadium situation raises legitimate concerns.

Pritzker might want to take his own advice https://t.co/etQVjweabq

— Capitol Fax (@capitolfax) June 22, 2026

Gov. J.B. Pritzker's Trump Feud: Will It Cost Him in the 2026 Governor's Race?

Gov. J.B. Pritzker is more than likely to win a third term as Illinois' governor, however, I find myself wondering if he's going to take a serious beating for his ongoing feud with our 47th POTUS Donald Trump.

In a recent wide-ranging interview with POLITICO at Chicago's iconic Manny's Deli, Pritzker sat down for a candid conversation covering everything from the 2024 election fallout to his sharp criticisms of Trump, his influence in state politics, and speculation about a potential 2028 presidential run. The governor didn't hold back, framing Trump's leadership in stark terms and doubling down on the confrontational style that's defined much of his time in office.

Pritzker has positioned himself as one of the leading Trump antagonists among Democrats. In the interview and recent statements, he highlights what he sees as damage from Trump's agenda to working families, farms, retailers, and more—while criticizing policies on tariffs, immigration enforcement, and broader governance. He portrays the current administration in strong language, calling out tones of political violence and authoritarian tendencies.

Check out the interview here [VIDEO]

PBD Podcast interviews Maryland Gov. Wes Moore

Gov. Wes Moore is a Democrat and so far the only serving Black man as governor of a state. I think you will find this interview very interesting. 

What's teased in the beginning of the interview - before it starts - is his thoughts on Gavin Newsom as Governor of California. PBD says Gov. Moore was able to fix his state, however, Gov. Newsom hasn't really been able to. I'd be very curious about this answer.

Here's the interview [VIDEO]

Gov. Moore has served since 2023 and is currently running for re-election this year.

CapFax: Illinoisans should not have to live this way

 I found this interesting on Capitol Fax, yesterday

* One of my top complaints about Democratic rule in this state is the super-majority party’s unwillingness to firmly step in to help some small Black-majority suburban and Downstate towns find their way to fiscal solvency. East St. Louis is just one of many…

What caught my eye is that there is a complaint about Democratic rule in Illinois. The bad news is there's no serious opposition in this state.

It won't solve all problems, however, the right politician could use this. Hopefully this theoretical politician would be serious about getting this done. 

NoCapFund: Why do we have 435 members in the House of Representatives?

 I had to attributed this to another YouTube channel - No Cap Fund - because I don't want to see this blog go on a Mr. Beat overload. He had talked about this in the past and have one video to show about it.

Mr. Beat wants to uncap the number of members in the US House of Representatives and he goes through the history of apportionment of representatives. Uncapping the number of representatives doesn't involve a constitutional amendment, it involves an act of Congress.

Mr. Beat has been attempting to get his congressman to take a stand on this issue although it appears a candidate for Congress is willing to take this issue on. And also it appears an Illinois Congresman Sean Casten seems ready to take on this issue as discussed in a live stream.

Here's the most recent video on this topic that Mr. Beat made [VIDEO]

My position on this is ambiguous. 

I can believe as stated in this video that polarization is a very serious thing that's worth putting a damper on. Does this necessarily mean more representatives? Does this mean a far more ideologically diverse representatives?

I do like the idea of bringing down the number of people in each district. Say perhaps instead of the 800K population per district we instead create more districts that perhaps could be about half that or less. 

Another thing noted is that if you mess with the number of representatives, you may also mess with the Electoral College count - now that's in the constitution (electoral votes are no. of representatives + Senators). Perhaps this means a recalcuation of the Electoral College math.

How could I sell this for say minority districts perhaps this might mean it would be easier in this state at least to create districts for Hispanics, Blacks, and others depending on where they may reside. I want to eliminate gerrymandering and who knows if this may address that. However, the states control drawing congressional maps more than the federal gov't does.

I think this is worth a discussion as opposed to killing this because reflexively we may decide there shouldn't be more politicians. Should we have more than 435 representatives? What do you think?

Mr. Beat: The 2020s are the 1890s

 

[VIDEO] This was sort discussed in a previous video shared here on this blog by Spectacles. The common thread is basically the unrest and the inequalities of wealth. 

Do you agree or disagree with the assertions of Mr. Beat & Spectacles?

Mr. Beat: Yes, We're in the Seventh Party System

 Wow, I haven't posted here since November 2025. It's not January 2025.

I wanted to share this video from Mr. Beat talking about the potentially 7 party systems. We're living in the 7th party system which started with the 2016 race and the election of Donald Trump.

The six other party systems or political eras are established based on the issues of the day and the shifting positions of the major parties. And even then the actually parties sometimes haven't always been consistent. 

Check it out [VIDEO]

Geography King - Gerrymandering: How to Manipulate Maps for Political Gain (With Tutorial!)

 Another great video on gerrymandering. While Geography King does look at Illinois' Congressional map and other states such as Kentucky & Louisiana to see how their maps appear to be drawn to insure political power.

Current Illinois Congressional Districts

One example he gives is looking at the neighboring state of Indiana. That state's congressional map is actually drawn by a computer. However, he uses this site https://davesredistricting.org/ to gerrymander Indiana's districts insuring that no Democrats can get elected to Congress.

I suppose that's the thing about gerrymandering. You have to know which areas will vote for whom. Cities generally will tilt Democrat while rural areas will generally tilt Republican. Indiana is basically a red state thought with blue or liberal enclaves such as Indianapolis in addition to areas like Gary, Lafayette, or even Bloomington - the latter two are college towns.

The trick is to dilute their strength and basically drown them out with those areas that are solidly Republican or conservative. And if nothing else create a district that is competitive where a Democrat would have to fight to win that district.

That's the thing about gerrymandering, as he puts it the politician chooses his voters and not the other way around.

Check out his almost hour long presentation [VIDEO]

The Recount: Why Expanding Congress Would End Gerrymandering

 Gerrymandering has been in the news lately. Texas recently approved a mid-decade redistricting plan thought not without controversy and states like Illinois and California are looking at creating their own plan. The ongoing controversy is partisan in practice with Republicans assuring they remain in control of the house while Democrats want to insure their own political power.

With this said when you watch the video below, consider this video I posted last year from Mr. Beat where there is an argument to expand the US House of Representatives. Let's add to this the possibility of using proportional representation that insures minority parties doesn't get shut out.

Most other nations on the globe either elect their legislatures this way or at least form their governments via proportional representation. And with this to work to determine members of the US House of Representatives what might help this along is expanding the members of the House as Mr. Beat discusses.

First watch the video [VIDEO]

IMHO, I think we do need to expand the number of Congresspersons (hey I like that better than Alderperson). I'm not entirely sold on proportional representation, but let's talk about it. We could expand this to state legislatures or even city councils (mostly big cities).

However, let's bear in mind this video is starting off talking about gerrymandering. The question is about creating fair maps.

Iowa is showing creating maps that largely considers county boundaries. Also why is there gerrymandering? These are districts drawn with political considerations and from what I know about redistricting in Illinois for example, it's to ensure that politicians get to retain their seats or more accurately to ensure politicians get to maintain their constituencies.

That means sometimes in other states outside of Iowa, cities might get split up between different districts. An example of Massachusetts the point was made that to ensure there is a Republican district there is to create a heavily gerrymandered map to elect one Republican there to Congress. Massachusetts was said to have voted 36% for Republican Donald Trump in 2024 for President, however, all Congresspersons elected from there are Democrats.

Has this video educated you on gerrymandering? Do you think we need to change how we draw our districts?

Gov. George H. Ryan R.I.P.

 George Ryan served as the Governor of Illinois from 1999 to 2003. There was a Republican dynasty from 1977 to 2003 which included Governors Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, and finally Ryan. That dynasty ended upon the election of Democrat Rod Blagojevich as IL Governor.

George Ryan I recall was the last effective governor Illinois had. There was significant infrastructure investment during his term and one infrastructure project involved the rehab of the Douglas branch of the CTA L (back then it was part of the CTA Blue Line, today it's the Pink Line). His infrastructure program was called Illinois First.

He's primarily known for commuting all death sentences in the state after at first placing a moratorium on death sentences. He had been demonized for this by death penalty advocates and they cite his political problems as a result of what was going on during his tenure as IL Secretary of State.

You might remember license for bribes you can read more about it here. This scandal led to his downfall (that is is one term as Governor) and ultimately his status as a convicted felon. Sentenced to six and a half years in federal prison in 2006, he was released from federal custody in 2013.

His wife preceded him in death and Gov. Ryan showed little regret in his decisions regarding the death penalty. However, many still view his moves on that issue as more politically motivated.

For the record, while I do consider myself right of center (or conservative) I'm against the death penalty. I'm in favor of justice, and hard for me to justify the death penalty when it's not always applied in the most just way. And certainly that some people may not be guilty of the crime for which they will be put to death. Also I don't find the application of the death penalty very humane.

I would say regardless of what motivated his decisions on this issue, I think he did the right thing in hindsight. Almost a decade after Gov. Ryan had left the Illinois Governorship, the state abolished the death penalty. And a later Republican Governor - the ineffective Bruce Rauner  - had proposed reinstating the death penalty and that failed.

To make a comparison while I may not like the progressive politics of J.B. Pritzker, I would give him credit for being an effective IL Governor. What both men have in common is that they both are interested in governing more than anything. That's what this great state needs.

Gov. Ryan died on May 2, 2025, he was 91.

I'm sorry to say I was slow to share with you news of the death of Gov. Jim Thompson who died in 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic. He was Illinois' longest serving governor from 1977 to 1991.

Also we have Gov. Thompson's immediate successor, Jim Edgar who is currently fighting cancer. Having seen someone I was very close to deal with this, I feel for Edgar. He was another one who was truly an effective IL Governor serving from 1991 to 1999. I hope he defeats that dreadful disease.

Mr. Beat on the 2024 Presidential race

 

[VIDEO] Here it is!

Mr. Beat's official 2024 election video. That race proved to be such a wild race. Who knew that President Donald Trump would make his return to the Oval Office after what happened in the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential race?

One thing that caught my eye in this video is a return to the spoils system. Basically insuring that those within the government are loyalists to your administration. What has been discussed within the populist right has been how the professional bureaucrats of the federal gov't helped undermind administrations they don't like.

America has already had a spoils system and at some point in the past our gov't were often staffed by a permanent bureacracy. And another argument made is that these bureacrats make some decisions over our lives and they're not elected.

With discussions of buyouts and more recently outright firings and even head of "D.O.G.E." Elon Musk declaring in a tweet that the Dept. of Education no longer exists. I'd say as they attempt to make gov't more efficient it seems more and more likely what Trump's priority is, perhaps he doesn't want a professional bureacracy. Perhaps more Presidents should staff the executive branch the way they see fit.

Now I'm sorry for not paying attention to what Trump was talking about during the campaign. And the fact that someone was attempting to kill him during that campaign. It helped to tip the odds in his favor. The use of weaponized "lawfare" was terrible and probably showed that someone was veyr concerned about him. Everything they tried to do seemed designed to keep him from running for President again and they may know full well after 2020 he had unfinished business. I wonder if they had just left him alone would he have just gone away on his own.

Meanwhile you had a President who was showing he couldn't handle the rigors of the job and while it's noted that his Vice President and her running mate breathed new life into the Democratic Party, it became clear to me that the Harris/Walz ticket was going to have their clock cleaned. Yeah Trump didn't perform well in his debate against Kamala Harris, however, it became clear that she wasn't the one either.

I'm curious what many of you think of the 47th President so far?

ALSO, feel free to watch what set up the 2024 race. Mr. Beat's video about the 2020 race.

Creating an Illinois Republic

Happy New Year to you all.

In about 2007 or 2008 I became aware of a blog - Con Con Illinois 2010 - which had a brief run back then proposing some ideals for how to reform Illinois state gov't. In 2008 - which was the one where Barack Obama won the Presidency - one item on the ballot at the time was a State Constitutional convention or what was popularly know as the con-con which would commence in 2010.

Of course to my disappointment at the time it got voted down. Opponents of a con-com seemed to often cite concerns over the possibility that a con-con would threaten the pension language in the 1970 IL constitution. Perhaps there wasn't great political support for one anyway.

We're at the point now where a con-con is again on the ballot, which would be in 2008. The political scene is vastly different in 2028 though I don't know how this will play out. I'd probably have to buy a subscription to the Capitol Fax newsletter to be able to tell you all for sure. However, what I can say definitely is that the players of the political scene in Illinois has largely changed significantly and who knows if they could effectively scuttle any possible enthusiasm for a 2030 con-con.

Generated by Google Gemini

However, what was on that Con Con 2010 blog is something worth exploring as we talk about an Illinois Republic.

I think many points that were shared on the Con Con 2010 blog's first post applies to what I hope to do in this thought exercise. Although I may not necessarily use the term democracy, I do prefer the term republic. I doubt any politico in this state would use the word republic, however, the idea is to go for  a vision.

• Imagine elections where there is more than one name on the ballot.
• Imagine there being many names on the ballot. Imagine there being more than two political parties to choose from.
• Imagine there being three, four or five viable political parties to choose from.
• Imagine that voting for a "third party" doesn't mean "spoiling" an election or having to pick from the lesser of two evils.
• Imagine every election in all parts of the state being competitive, not just in a few swing districts.
• Imagine there not being any gerrymandering.
• Imagine the winning party actually having to enact the platform they ran on.
• Imagine money not playing such a big role in elections.

It's unknown how many of these planks could be achieved, however, some of them I think are somewhat easy to implement.

I would like the idea of having multiple viable political parties and they could get elected at least to the state legislature. And thus the Republicans and Democrats would have to compete a lot better than they do now. 

Competitive elections everywhere throughout the state would be another great idea no one party should dominate in one region or another.

What this blog had discussed during it's brief run was how to compose the IL General Assembly, the state's legislative branch. That is something that I do intent to explore using some of the posts on that blog. Though I want to throw in some of my own ideas.

Another thing under consideration is local governance. For example, I came of the understanding that cities in this state don't have charters. What kind of city charter could I write for the city of Chicago? How is Chicago governed without one or what would be the purpose of a charter.

I look forward to going through this exercise.

An Illinois Republic

For the moment we're going back to the "Shedd School of Pol. Sci."

I've often flirting with the idea of posting a political platform of some sort. This time my goal is to think about longterm what my vision would be let's say for a particular position within the U.S. gov't. My attention in this case is turned to the State of Illinois.

It's almost fitting given that we've just gotten out of a Presidential Election and the President-elect (Donald J. Trump) is looking to make significant changes to the US Gov't. He even brought in an industrialist and a very vocal, articulate activist to head this new Department of Gov't Efficency (DOGE) to cut as much of the nat'l debt as possible.

Also consider that in this state we're less than two years away from the next Gubernatorial race and we don't yet know who's running. Could Gov. Pritzker run for a third term? We already know his vision since he's been in office since 2018. What could anyone who wants to run for Governor bring to the table once they throw their hat in the ring for 2026?

Well to be honest I'm a long way from thinking I can jump into that ring and be successful. I'm just a citizen and chances are I'm on no one's radar. A blog is something of a soapbox and also in sharing these ideas, the door is open for someone to take advantage of them.

Not worried about it, I have no crystal ball. Besides these are just theories. And I do look forward to sharing them with you all in the near future.

So let's start with this and give you a teaser.

What is my vision for an Illinois Republic?

Resyndicated: Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump - The Only Double Presidents Compared

 

[VIDEO] I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.

The YouTube channel Resyndicated (the voice over artist sounds a lot like former Republican nominee for Governor Darren Bailey) did a recent video discussing the historical notes of Grover Cleveland & Donald Trump. They were the only two men who were elected to two non-consecutive Presidents in American history.

Donald Trump achieved that feat earlier this month after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 Presidential race. Trump had earlier served from 2017 to 2021 and will become the 47th President in 2025.

For Grover Cleveland he served one term from 1885 to 1889. However, after losing the 1892 race he again one the race against the man who defeated him in 1892 - Benjamin Harrison - and won another term from 1893 to 1897.

Of course there were other candidates who not only sought their party's nomination for President multiple times although they weren't successful in their bids for the Presidency. However, there were other Presidents who had sought non-consecutive terms from Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, to Theodore Roosevelt. The most likely man to have been able to won another term as President was Roosevelt who ran again in 1912 though the winner of that election was ultimately Woodrow Wilson.

Anyway I hope you enjoy the history shared in this video.

60 Minutes: How President-elect Trump won Pennsylvania

 

[VIDEO] To be honest there were some aspects of this story I wish was handled differently. They had to mention that President Trump is a convicted felon. Then they mentioned those people who were an election denier (2020 race).

What is accurate is that the Democrats misread the electorate. That although Trump has his flaws (yeah being a felon isn't necessarily a flaw, there are much more real flaws than that), a lot of people chose him over Vice President Kamala Harris. No one uses the term "kitchen table" issues, but that term would be the key one to use here.

The cost of housing, groceries, and let's not forget about gas. Those were issues that people were following throughout these last four years of the Biden presidency. And also as a consideration people might remember Trump's presidency at least before the pandemic in 2020.

It's amazing that this was a landslide. Trump's victory in 2016 he lost in the popular vote but he was able to get a majority of electoral votes to secure the presidency. This year he won in both the popular vote and electoral votes. He was able to sweep such battleground states as North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and most recently Arizona.

Wisconsin and Pennsylvania certainly helped Trump secure the presidency for the second time.

One last takeway, there was no enthusiasm for the Vice President who sought to become America's first woman president. She had a lot of flaw and the more voters knew about her, I'm sure those flaws turned them off.

As I've learned about voter turnout. Let's say a particular base isn't that enthused by a candidate they're most likely to vote for they won't vote. They may just stay home instead. As with 2016 there was more enthusiasm for President Trump.

Grover Cleveland

 On Tuesday night, 45th President of the United States Donald Trump (2017-2021) became only the second man to have served one term, lost his re-election bid, and then get elected to yet another term as President. He defeated in a landslide Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday and was able to repeat his feat from 2016. Better still he not only wins in the Electoral College, he also wins handily in the popular vote - something he didn't do in 2016.

He shares this historical footnote with only one other man, his name is Grover Cleveland who was the 22nd (1885-1889) & 24th (1893-1897) President of the United States. Oh and an interesting footnote here, just as happened with Trump in 2016, Cleveland actually won the popular vote in 1892 and yet lost in the Electoral College to his successor Benjamin Harrison - the 23rd President (1889-1893).

Grover Cleveland

I'm sharing this most recent story I found this morning from Spectrum News. While it appears to have only been published to YouTube a day ago just from the way they were talking it had to have been produced before Election Day 2024. [VIDEO]

Mr. Beat talks about 'October surprises'

 

[VIDEO] The term October surprise originated during the 1980 Presidential race between Pres. Jimmy Carter and future President Ronald Reagan. Basically the surprise would be beneficial to Pres. Carter especially if it involved the release of the hostages in Iran which didn't happen after Carter was out of office. The Iranian hostage crisis was the story of that day.

Basically October surprises as Mr. Beat explains seems to be aimed to be beneficial to a candidate or often very negative towards another candidate. And we learn October surprises have a long history in American politics even if it wasn't always known as such.

The original term for October surprises before 1980 and certainly during the 19th Century - the first "October surprise" was during the 1840 Presidential Race between Pres. Martin Van Buren and future President William Henry Harrison..

After the election of 1844, October Surprises were known as "roorbacking". Based on a book that implied that future Pres. James K. Polk had branded his slaves which was proven false and force a newspaper that published the story to apologize. The book "Roorback's Tour Through the Southern and Western States in the year 1836".

A current example of an October surprise in the 2024 race might be allegations of former Pres. Donald Trump's alleged affinity for Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party. That's been going around during the last few weeks of October. Also the comments of a comedian at a Trump rally making a distasteful joke about the American territory of Puerto Rico. It remains to be seen if that will make an impact in next week's Presidential election. 

We're less than one week away! 

PBS Frontline - The VP Choice: Vance vs. Walz

 

[VIDEO] Another look at the Presidential running mates for 2024 U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) running with former Pres. Donald Trump vs. Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) running with Vice President Kamala Harris. This documentary looks at the evolution of both men.

It was reported when Sen. Vance became Trump's pick how he used to be very opposed to President Trump and then later he came around. And it was enough for him to be the VP running mate.

And then Walz as a school teacher and then later a congressman and Governor of Minnesota.

Is there anything you got from the story of both men?

Hasan Minhaj: Illinois' billionaire Gov. J.B. Pritzker

 

[VIDEO] Pretty good interview. 

They even touched upon the corrupt reputation of the office of IL governor. Pritzker even joked that he told his son there's a good chance of him going to prison.

Eh, Pritzker's a Democrat but dude, c'mon. You got to set the standard for the office it already has a terrible repution from past Governors, especially the more recent ones. From Otto Kerner, Daniel Walker (what he did had little to do with what he did as Governor to be fair), George Ryan (really same thing it kept him from running for a second term & what did him in was what happened when he was our Secretary of State), and of course our most recent example a man named Rod Blagojevich.

Gov. Pritzker espouses "progressive" values. He spoke about this often in this interview. I'm not a progressive and a lot of his policy agenda I don't agree with, however, unlike some of his more recent predecessors he's actually governing and for that I give him credit. Now if only we could find a Republican who can espouse conservative values for this state.

He did sort of touch about his progressive income tax (a graduated income tax) which failed in front of voters in 2020. He attributes this in part to the pandemic I would agree however he would state that the pandemic didn't enable him to knock on doors. I would say because of the economic downturn as a result of the pandemic probably caused voters to say no.

Also his 2018 election. He said he needed to defeat the then incumbent governor Bruce Rauner who had enough money to self-fund. And to be honest Rauner was terrible and of course he wasn't governing. Two years without a budget with social service agencies forced to shut down because of it.

I suppose the question I wish was asked. Will Pritzker run for a third term? Or is he eying a White House run?