New Yorkers—NO on 3! (Please keep this kicked.)

[rbnyc]

Please, my friends in New York City, remember to vote tomorrow and vote NO on Question 3! Please call at least 3 of your friends and remind them to vote NO on 3!

I was at a very discouraging NO on 3 rally yesterday in Sheridan Square. The turn-out was dismal! I’m really scared that I’m going to lose my right to vote in party primaries in the city.

I think party primaries are extremely important. I know that most of you do too. As I was saying to a friend at yesterday’s rally, primaries give us a chance to express our concerns and our values to the party, and give us a chance to support candidates and positions that are outside the mainstream.

If question #3 passes, our system will become more narrow and exclusive, at a time when it so desperately needs to become more inclusive. WE MUST TURN OUT IN BIG NUMBERS TOMORROW!

(Not a New Yorker? Do you know a registered voter in New York City? Please call that person.)

Thanks.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031117&s=editors3

http://www.nycclc.org/assets/nycclcflyer.pdf

(I have called 3 friends.)

[BurtWorm]

1. I'm a little worried about that one myself.

I think the public is apathetic, which could be good news for opponents of 3, because we're the ones who are fired up over this. Question 3 is completely Bloomberg's baby. I think only the Daily News supports it. The Post and Times definitely don't. The Post thinks it will entrench Democrats even more. The Times, I believe, is closer to where I am: this is no way to change the city charter--according to the whim of the current mayor and an ill-informed public.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. agree. It shouldn't pass

and I can't even see how it would withstand a court challenge were it to pass.

[rbnyc]

3. Apathetic is right.

You should have seen the faces of the 12 or so folks at the rally yesterday. It was sponsored by 3 different political clubs and they couldn't even get their membership to show up.

My favorite State Senator was the first speaker, Tom Duane. He cares so much. I just wanted to cry.

Is this completely Bloomberg's baby? What about the Independence Party?

[rbnyc]

5. Article:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0344/robbins.php

[BurtWorm]

7. You're right. It's the ungodly offspring of Bloomberg and Fulani

But Bloomberg is bankrolling it. I was not fired up about this until I saw Bloomberg's phony "way to strengthen the Democratic Party" bullshit flyer. One thing I really hate is blatant dishonesty like that.

[rbnyc]

9. I haven't seen that!

:grr:

*sigh*

I feel a little more encouraged now. I just sent a letter to everyone in my address book, then checked my inbox and saw that I got a new message fom move on about question 3. I'm glad move on is on the case.

[BurtWorm]

11. Democrats.com is, too.

And so is Howard Dean. And Bill Perkins (my council member). I've been getting a lot of e-mails and mail against it.

[rbnyc]

14. Awesome!

Thanks.

[jumptheshadow]

15. The Times opposes it

~ snip ~

...(it) would not fix the pressing and substantial problems with the current electoral system. But the proposal could damage the city's campaign finance system -- perhaps the finest in the nation in the way it has begun to open up the electoral process to candidates who otherwise could not afford to mount a campaign.

~ snip ~

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/opinion/03MON4.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials

It's funny. I was reading DU last night, the phone rang, and it was one of those pre-recorded messages from Rudy touting the change.

[smirkymonkey]

4. I'm a New Yorker, I'm Voting

and I'm Voting NO!!
:kick:

[rbnyc]

6. Thank You!!

:loveya:

[RandomUser]

8. I'm not sure about this

Resolution #3 would be bad for the Democratic Party, but good for democracy.

It will increase increase voter turn-out at primaries.

[rbnyc]

10. How and Why?

More people will be eligible to vote in primaries, because they won't have to be registered in a party. But will that really increase turnout? And how does it help democracy to have everyone running in the same primary. The smaller voices will just get squashed. It will make it even MORE all about funding.

EDIT: typo

[RandomUser]

16. The fact that more people might take an interest

and look at opposition candidate positions. Because all the candidates, not just the ones from your party, are running for your primary vote. It will basically be like a Mayoral election held a bit earlier with a ton of candidates like the California recall mess, with a run-off between the two top vote getters.

You're right about more people being eligible to vote in the primaries. Although more people being eligible to vote in the primaries isn't a guarantee of higher turn-out, it would be a start. And I associate more people voting with being a good thing.

From a control standpoint, it means low popularity candidates like Kucinich won't be screened out before being presented to the general voting population. And it also means candidates won't have to "run to the left (right) in the primaries, run to the center in the general." And it will give special interest a slightly lesser influence on the election, for better or worse -- both good special interest groups like labor, as well as negative ones like corporations -- since they won't be playing as large an exclusive role in the "vetting" process of the primaries.

It will definitely hurt the Democrats though, since there are significantly more Democrats than Republicans in NYC, and hence a greater potential to field more candidates and split the vote. And there's the possibility of the votes getting split so that an unsavory character ends up in one of the top two slots. In which case, we end up with an Arnold or France situation, neither of which is very good for democracy.

It will give Greens and independents a larger role by being in the same primary as the others, kind of in the California recall. And the Republicans stand to gain from the Dem vote splitting.

I'm not sure resolution #3 is a good thing. But I'm not sure it's a bad one either.

[rbnyc]

13. Did you read this article?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031117&s=editors3

On November 4, New York City is being asked to decide Question 3, a deceptively simple change to the city's charter that would eliminate the role of political parties in nominating candidates through primaries and instead adopt a "unitary ballot" listing all the people running for each office, followed by a runoff for the top two vote-getters.

(snip)

In this shrunken version of democracy, the parties often are little more than shells for laundering donations from wealthy special interests, through which lobbyists and interest groups who can "pay to play" get their concerns addressed.

(snip)

eliminating party primaries won't solve these problems; it will make them worse. Party primaries do help signal that candidates represent minimally different programs; parties also help recruit and filter candidates, and depending on their leadership, work to hold elected representatives accountable. In New York, where smaller parties thrive because fusion is legal, the Working Families Party has played a vital role in raising neglected issues, organizing underrepresented constituencies and nurturing new leaders. Party primaries also give racial minorities a chance to concentrate their votes. By contrast, a nonpartisan listing of candidates would repeat the cacophony of the California recall, where voters had to choose among a cattle call of contenders, and so gravitated to the ones with the most money and name recognition.

Mayor Bloomberg is spending at least $2 million on this charter change because, he claims, it will increase voter participation and reduce the power of "party bosses." But as Barnard College professor Lorraine Minnite points out, "We know from nearly a hundred years of experience with nonpartisan elections that these systems...depress turnout, further skew the upper-class bias of the electorate and privilege wealthy candidates or candidates with name recognition." In New York as in other places that have shifted to nonpartisan ballots, that means electing more Republicans.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031117&s=editors3

[RandomUser]

18. #3 may not be the answer

But something needs to be done to increase voter turn-out for primaries.

[rbnyc]

19. I agree that something has to be done...but 3 will make things worse.

Thanks for reading the article.

[RandomUser]

20. I'm still not sure #3 is a bad thing

And I read the articles you linked before my first reply on this thread.

[rbnyc]

21. What's good about it?

Do you think it's really relevant that the recent California ballot had all those names on it? Who are the candidates people knew about? Who participated in debates? Only the most mainstream candidates with the most financial backing had any influence over issues that defined the election.

While that’s true to a certain extent in a party primary as well, at least in a party primary the less funded candidates and the candidates who push boundaries are only competing against a handful of other candidates, and they’re competing for the votes of people who share enough of their values to identify with their party.

This means that mainstream candidates have to address the issues brought to the debate by the other candidates. Without party primaries, mainstream candidates don’t have to compete with liberal candidates for my vote. They only have to compete with the other mainstream candidates for the votes of people who don’t even know enough about their own political values to pick a party when they register to vote.

Do you really think that because the Marijuana Reform Party, for example, has a candidate listed on a huge open ballot, that the top Republican and Democratic candidates will have to bring drug policy reform into their agenda?

Imagine if there were no party presidential primaries? The party would have to throw all its money behind the most mainstream candidate without any input from voters. Right now, even tho candidates like Sharpton, CMB, and DK may be unlikely to win, there’s a reason for them to be involved, to broaden the debate, express our values to party leaders, and force the front-runners to be concerned about us. Put everyone into one big pool and we may as well just amend the constitution, let Arnold run for president against Joe Lieberman and be done with it.


EDIT: typo

[RandomUser]

22. The fact that more people would be eligible to vote in primaries

That would be one good thing, IMO.

I'm not saying #3 is all good, but it's not all bad either. I happen to agree with your concerns and reasons for why it's bad. But I'm also willing to admit that if it makes more people vote in primaries, it's done a good thing there. The question is whether each voter decides if there's more good or bad.

I guess I like being able to see all sides of any argument. It's probably why I've voted Dem, Rep, and Green all on the same ballot ;) Don't worry, I vote 90% Dem. (and yes, I really have voted both Green and Republican on the same ballot)

[rbnyc]

23. If Bloomberg were really concerned about fairness...

...and participation, he would put his money behind this: http://www.instantrunoff.com/

But his concern is in paying a political debt to the independence party, increasing his chances for re-election, and, IMHO sattisfying his bitterness that the Democratic Mayoral primary was too heavy for him.

[BurtWorm]

24. Exactly!

If you want to reform the election system, why not make it a real, meaningful reform? (And why try to sneak this in on a plebiscite?)

[RandomUser]

25. I like instant runoff, but there are some problems with it

There was a thread about instantrunoff with some links to other alternative methods.

I think instant runoff would be better than our current system, but it still has some bugs. Perhaps a modified version of instant runoff and some of the other forms of voting.

There really is no perfect voting system. They're all flawed with fundamental faults that can be manipulated to produces counter intuitive results. Our present plurality system is probably the worse. But instant runoff isn't the best either.

Here's a discussion of some alternative voting systems such as instant runoff, and the flaws in them.

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/altvote.html

[rbnyc]

26. cool. thanks for the link. (nt)

[dreissig]

12. Giuliani Supports It

Whatever Giuliani supports, I'm automatically inclined to oppose. Just that fact alone makes it suspect. I'm definitely voting No.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

33. Amen

That scumbag left an automatic message on my answering machine the other day, strengthening my resolve to vote NO, NO, NO, and NO. The five minutes of goodwill that I felt towards Giuliani when he had prostate cancer has become a dim memory indeed.

[tom_paine]

17. kick

[rbnyc]

27. kick

:kick:

[rbnyc]

28. Now's a good time to call 3 of your friends!

Do it and check in!

Thanks.

[Stephanie]

29. Here is MoveOn's email, if you want to forward it out

Dear MoveOn member,

Tomorrow, November 4th, is Election Day. As a New York resident, I'm writing to urge you to go to the polls and vote NO on Question 3. Since this is an off-year election, we'll need every last vote to make sure that Mayor Bloomberg and wealthy Republicans don't eliminate party primaries in New York.

If Bloomberg's proposal goes through, minority voters would lose influence in city elections, the city's landmark campaign finance program would be hamstrung, and voters would lose the opportunity to pick their own party's candidates for the general election. In practice, this system will mean a shift in power to the wealthy and the Republican party.

It's not often that we agree with the New York Post editorial pages, but the Post is just one of a number of newspapers who oppose the initiative. The New York Times, Newsday, The New York Sun, and The New York Amsterdam Sun also have written editorials opposing it.

As the New York Times editorial observed, "it is telling that the mayor has not been able to garner much support for this proposal and has found himself opposed by every major good-government group." (Editorial, 10/29/03) Those good-government groups include the League of Women Voters, Common Cause NY, and NYPIRG.

Despite this strong opposition, the fate of ballot Question 3 will be determined by a few votes. That's because Mayor Bloomberg is bankrolling a massive mail blitz to get this ballot measure adopted. Last week The Amsterdam News called a brochure mailed by the Mayor's campaign committee deceptive, because it featured misleading quotes that suggested the paper supports non-partisan elections, when in fact it does not.

Please go to the polls tomorrow and vote NO on Question 3. And please forward this message to your friends and colleagues and ask them to vote NO as well.

Sincerely,
--Eli Pariser
MoveOn.org

P.S. Here's the NY Times editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/opinion/27MON3.html

[rbnyc]

30. Thanks Steph! (nt)

[BurtWorm]

31. kick

:kick:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. .

[robbedvoter]

34. My candidate Clark sent a good mailing on it too. NYS Dems are

sending flyers daily. I was out at a fair yesterday with my Dem club giving flyers on it. Anyone knows the deal with prop #1 and #2? Margarita Lopez said yes on those. A supreme court judge giving his own stuff had them with "No" If I don't get an answer I don't vote on those.
If 6 is on the ballot, please vote yes (the class size amendment) Apellate Court knocked it down, but we may at least send a message.

[rbnyc]

35. TODAY'S THE DAY!!!

I'm on my way to vote in 15 bminutes!

[goobergunch]

36. kick for the future of NYC

:kick:

Vote :thumbsdown: on Prop 3!

[Stephanie]

37. What time do the polls close?

Anyone?

[goobergunch]

39. 9:00 PM EST in NY (n/t)

[RebelOne]

38. I'm not a New Yorker, but I'll kick it.

[tom_paine]

40. kick

[rbnyc]

41. still have a few hours

:kick:

Thanks everyone.

[hippiegranny]

42. kick to the top!

:kick:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

43. kick for No on 3

Bloomberg's attempt to weaken the Democratic party. Too bad, Bloomie, we run this town!

[nostamj]

44. been there (voting place)

dont that (NO on 3!)

turnout ?????????????????????

i was the only person voting at 5pm

no lines at any precinct.

.00000000001% of registered voters?

<insert shaking head smilie here>