or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| New York City Ballot Proposals --- Question #3 |
ETWolverine |
10/27/03 |
On 11/4/03, New York State will be voting in the general election. The big issue in New York City this election day is the proposal to establish a new electoral system for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and Council members. The current system calls for Party Primaries, wherein only members of a party can vote for members of that party. The front-runners of each party then run against each other in a general election. The new system would open up primaries to any registered voters, regardless of party affiliation. The idea is to create a non-partisan primary system.
Here is the text (from the NYC Campaign Finance Board's voters guide).
-----------------------------------
Official Text
This proposal would amend the City Charter to establish a new system of city elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and Council member. The September primary election would be open to all voters and all candidates, regardless of party membership or independent status. The top two vote getters would compete in the November general election. In both elections, candidates could indicate their party membership or independent status on the ballot. Candidates participating in the voluntary campaign finance program, which provides public campaign funding, could not accept contributions from political parties or party committees. The new system would replace the current system of political party nominations through primary elections in which only party members may vote. The changes would take effect after the 2005 Citywide election. Shall this proposal be adopted?
Official Summary (prepared by the Charter Revision Commission)
This proposal would make changes to the way the City conducts its elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council Member. The proposal would provide for a single September primary election open to all eligible voters and candidates, and the top two vote getters in that election would compete in the November general election. The changes would take effect after the 2005 citywide election and apply to all elections, including special elections to fill vacancies in office.
How it Works — Currently, candidates who are running for elected office compete against each other in party primary elections (followed in certain instances by runoff primaries). In these elections, which are held in September, each party’s members cast ballots to decide the general election nominee of that party. Candidates may also be nominated for the general election through an independent nominating petition process. Under the proposed system, all candidates for an office would run against each other in the September primary election. Voters would be eligible to vote for any candidate, including a candidate who belongs to a different political party or is registered as an independent. Only the top two finishers in the primary election, regardless of their party or independent registration status, would compete in the November general election.
Who is Eligible to Vote — Currently, only registered voters who are enrolled in political parties may vote in primary elections. Voters registered as independents cannot participate until the general election. Under the proposed system, all voters, including independent voters not enrolled in any party, would be eligible to participate in the primary election.
Ballot Access — Currently, registered voters who carry or sign a petition to place a candidate on the ballot generally must be enrolled in the same party as the candidate petitioning to get on the ballot. Under the proposed system, all eligible registered voters, regardless of their party enrollment or independent status, would be permitted to carry and sign a petition to place a candidate on the ballot. In addition, the maximum number of petition signatures required would generally be the same maximum number that is currently provided for candidates to be placed on the primary election ballot. The new signature requirements would also apply to candidates in special elections to fill vacancies.
The Ballot — Currently, the ballot lists a candidate’s party affiliation. Under the proposed system, candidates would be permitted, but not required, to list their party registration or independent status on the ballot.
Political Party Campaign Contributions — Currently, all candidates, including those who participate in the City’s voluntary campaign finance program, which provides money from the City treasury to help fund candidates’ campaigns, are permitted to accept campaign contributions from political parties, up to specified limits, but candidates may not accept contributions from corporations or unregistered political committees. Under the proposed system, candidates who participate in the campaign finance program would also be prohibited from accepting campaign contributions from political parties. In addition, the Campaign Finance Board would have the authority to address party expenditures in relation to candidates participating in the City’s campaign finance program in order to protect the contribution and spending limits of the program under the new system of elections.
Voter Guide — Currently, all candidates may place biographical summaries, campaign information, and a picture of themselves in the printed Voter Guide. This proposal would create a video Voter Guide that broadcasts candidates making brief statements on a municipal cable television channel.
Vacancies in Nominations — Currently, if a candidate dies or a nomination otherwise becomes vacant, the candidate’s committee to fill vacancies generally chooses a successor to run in his or her place, if time allows. Under the new system, the next eligible top vote getter in the primary election could fill the vacancy and advance to the general election accordingly. If the vacancy could not be filled in that manner, then a committee to fill vacancies would fill it.
-------------------------------------
My question: what is your opinion of this proposal?
Elliot |
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 10/28/03 7:32 am:
>>>This proposal is supported by Republicans who otherwise do not have a snowballs chance in hell of winning a local NYC election . <<<
Actually, those who are both in favor of and against the proposal run the gamut between both parties, and include some independants as well. This is NOT an overwhelmingly Republican proposal, nor are Democrats overwhelmingly against it. Additionally, the NY Post, the most conservative newspaper in NYC, has taken an editorial stance AGAINST the proposal. I disagree with your categorization of Proposal #3 as a Republican proposal.
>>>notwithstanding the fact that the last 2 mayors have been elected from the Republican ticket [one was elected after a buffoon was running the city ,and the other needed to spend a rather large personal fortune to counter the Democrat machine]. <<<
Still... 2 for 2 isn't bad. And, please remember that Giuliani was RE-ELECTED. The fact is, the Democrats had viable options of candidates to run against Giuliani and again against Bloomberg. Obviously enough voters either agreed with Giuliani or disagreed with his Democratic opponents that they voted for him twice and then voted for Bloomberg on his coat-tails.
Still, I agree with your point. The Democratic control of NYC is very strong and very tough to beat. I wonder, though, if having the Republican Convention here in 2004 won't change that status quo, and give the New York City Republican Party the kick in the pants that it has needed for decades to become a more competitive political body.
>>>The fact is that in general only Democrats under the current set up have a realisitic chance of winning an election there.Many consider the Democrat Primary as the general election .That system by it's nature disqualifies many talented and qualified candidates from presenting themselves to the electorate ; Not only Republicans ,but 3rd party and independent candidates as well . This is not a healthy situation ,and I favor trying any means possible to open up the process. <<<
While I agree with the basic sentiment, I disagree with your final sentence. I am not in favor of trying a system that will only make things worse. Consider this:
1) An 'open' primary system will actually disenfranchise minorities, rather than empowering them. Minority groups represent powerful, organized voting blocks that have a HUGE say in party politics. They have that say because they vote as an organized group in primaries. By eliminating party-based primaries, you eliminate their say within the party.
2) An open primary system will actually increase, not diminish, the power of the 'party bosses'. The party bosses, instead of financially backing the candidate that represents the most votes (and therefore is a true representative of the constituency) will back THEIR candidate, whether he truly represents the constituency or not. Party bosses will no longer have to cater to what the rank-and-file want; they'll back their own darling, and the rank-and-file be damned.
3) Open primaries will suddenly be open to (potentially) hundreds of candidates, rather than a few that represent the party and the constituency. You didn't like what happened last month in California with 136 candidates running. You called it chaos. Imagine that kind of chaos every 4 years in NYC. And that doesn't even take into consideration the waste of money on expensive run-offs, when no clear winner in the primary is determined.
4) An open primary system will actually set back campaign finance controlls by at least a decade by allowing parties to spend unlimited amounts of “soft” party money on preferred candidates. There is no Constitutional way to control “soft” money in the context of nonpartisan elections.
5) By having a system in which candidates are not forced to list their party affiliation, voters are likely to become disenfranchised. They will be confused, and instead of voting for the candidate that represents their views, they will vote based on ethnicity, race, or name recognition. Or worse, they won't bother voting at all below the mayoral line on the ticket.
Proposal #3 may be a change from the status quo, but that doesn't make it a good change. A change that causes more problems than it solves should NOT be our choice.
If the NYC Republican Party wants to get into the game, and wants a viable chance at winning some seats in the city legislature, then what it needs is not electoral system reform. What it needs to do is ORGANIZE, get the word out, start campaigning, and start putting forward VIABLE CADIDATES as alternatives to the Democrats. I disagree when the Democrats use gerimandering to gain power because it is a technique of CHANGING THE SYSTEM rather than going out ang earning votes. Similarly, I would be against Republicans gaining seats because they changed the system rather than earning the votes. Thus, I am against Proposal #3.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by voiceguy2000 on 10/29/03 8:59 am:
The New York Times has come out against adoption of proposal #3. See this link (free but registration may be required). Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 10/29/03 9:57 am:
I'm not surprised that the NY Times came out against it. It is in the best interests of the liberal community for this proposal to fail... it would keep them in power.
But the NY Post, a conservative paper, has also come out against it too. And I believe that they are correct. Although it SOUNDS good for conservatives and for NYC as a whole on the face of it, deeper examination reveals some significant weaknesses in the proposal. Please see my comments to Tomder55.
Elliot
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
