Storms roaming around.

[yogi]

My confusion is that I thought the system was set up so that people vote for somebody to represent them in a given office. I suppose one representative could have multiple responsibilities crossing district lines. In that case it would make sense to be voting out of district. I think you are correct to note that it's all related to taxing bodies. The representative vote boils down to picking somebody to spend those tax dollars you pay, and those tax dollars come from many different sources.

[Kellemora]

This vote was just for City Council Members that oversee the entire city, but each have their own special districts also.
Now when you vote for Alderman, there you only vote in your own District, because their jurisdiction doesn't cross their districts.
For an Alderman to do something in his district, he needs the majority of City Council Members to vote to do so.
And as is always true in Politics, if one Alderman wants something for his districts, then all the other districts want something too.

That being said, there are a lot of things that do not come out of the city budget, but only out of the local aldermatic districts internal tax revenues.
For example, one alderman wants to have little islands with trees planted down a stretch of road in the median. This is really complex if it involves changes to the road itself, because then it becomes a city wide issue. But lets say the road already had a raised median separating the driving lanes already. In that case, the aldermatic district can get a vote of the people in that district to fund such an undertaking. It is often a two step process, one for construction, and another for maintenance after construction.
There are also smaller community projects covering areas much smaller than an aldermatic district as well.
One recent one by us was adding a sidewalk from a public parking lot not associated with the park, to a public park.
The public parking lot was built in lieu of widening the street, to end on-street parking in that short two block stretch.
There was a small lot that had a mobile home on it at one time, and the lot was too small to build on, and neither of the homeowners on either side wanted to buy it. Rather than maintain that lot, the city decided to pave it in trade of getting rid of on-street parking. They also made a bicycle lane along one edge of the road there too at the same time.
Since folks were parking in that lot, and walking between a couple of houses to get to the park, creating a muddy mess, that little area all voted to get a sidewalk. The homeowners were glad to give an easement for it to get put in too.

[yogi]

I understand the layering of governance seen in all major cities. Life in Chicago made all that clear to me. Most folks and neighborhoods who needed something done did it with the help of their alderman. There could have been political lines even more granular than that, but my impression was the alderman was the interface between the people and the government. I don't think I ever met any county political operatives other than the tax assessor and on rare occasion the sheriff's police. All civil business was done directly with the villages or the state of Illinois in my case. I was too young to get friendly with the alderman in our Chicago home, but my parents seemed to know him well.

[Kellemora]

When I first moved down here and attended all the town hall meetings, I got to know many of the poly-TICK-ians that covered our area. Never did any good though as they just did what they wanted to, even with everyone complaining and saying no don't.

Down south here politics is more complicated than it was in the midwest.

[yogi]

I get the impression that there are multiple political "systems" in operation depending on the locale of your residence. The political scene down here in Missouri is pretty much opposite to what it was up by Chicago. It's not as simple as Democrats vs Republicans either. All politics is base on schmoozing. It has to be that way because of all the different perspectives represented. Getting people to agree on any one matter isn't a logical process by any means and thus you got to know how the representative system works in order to get anything done. We all have access to the system, but getting your foot in door is what's different by locality. There are people up north who work for the party, so to speak, and become known and influential that way. Down south it's more like the Good Old Boys culture where favoritism plays an dominating role. Schmoozing with the leader of the pack gets you political clout. Then, too, that leader better like you or you get nothing for all your trouble. The downside to it all is that you are expected to cater to the whims of the party or the leader of the party if you want to be recognized. Most people won't stoop that low, which is why most people are not poly-TICK-ians.

[Kellemora]

Remember the show, The Dukes of Hazzard County?
They NAILED it as far as what politics is like down here, hi hi.
You kowtow to Boss Hogg or else!
As with all poly-TICK-ians, it is about how much MONEY do they GET for the OWN POCKETS!

[yogi]

It seems as if money is the driving force, and it is in many instances. The most influential folks on the political scene however are the ego maniacs and narcissists. They do what it takes to achieve that extraordinary level of self-aggrandizement, which translates to an effective use of power. Money helps, but that' s only part of the story.

[Kellemora]

Early on, I don't think too many poly-TICK-ians got rich by being in politics.
But that has changed. Can you find a living poly-TICK-ian who didn't get rich while in politics.

[yogi]

The answer to your question depends on how you define "getting rich" while in politics. Most of the low level bosses are just average people like you and I. As you climb up the ladder of political influence the stakes become higher. Eventually getting to the next level becomes a matter of financial capability. Either you have the cash in the bank to run your own campaign or you are good enough to get a lot of people to donate to your cause. As the stakes for getting into office become higher, so does your net worth. In that sense people do become more wealthy in a political role. But is it due to their role or something else? Mike Pence, the #2 man under Trump, upon exiting had a net worth of $1 million. Substantial, but Kamala Harris took his place and had a net worth of $7 millilon. Depending on what you call rich, both of those people were already rich when they took office. They had to be just to afford getting there.

[ocelotl]

Now you're telling me that it was not a over the wall comedy show, but more like an anecdotal recount... Go figure.

[yogi]

I'm not sure to what you are referring, Juan. There is a popular belief that ALL politicians are corrupt, or become corrupt once they are in office. Proof of that, somehow, is in the fact that they are wealthy. My position is that corruption is there, but it's not as prevalent as is commonly thought. Only a certain kind of person can be an effective political operative to begin with, and that is what determines the outcome.

[Kellemora]

To put it simply:
Poly-TICK-ians changed the name of taking a BRIBE to simply being LOBBIED!