There's An Election Tomorrow? YES!
Nov. 3rd, 2003 10:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sdelmonteTomorrow is Election Day, and if are from New York City, there is something important to vote on. (Cut-tagged if you wish to skip NYC political matters.) There are five ballot initiatves thurst before the people. Four of them I can't make heads or tails of, and seem like things that legislatures should be addressing for us. The fifth, Ballot Initiative 3, would change NYC's elections to the "non-partisan" format, wherein party primaries would be replaced with a wide-open anyone-can-run race. The two top vote-getters would then proceed to a Nomveber runoff election. I myself am opposed to this, but will admit that I also see this a blatant effort by the Republican Party in New York to end Democratic dominance. The theory is that would make it easier to be elected as a Republican while the Democratic candidates slit each others' throats. Thing is, NYC has elected two Republican mayors in a row under the current system so I think changing it makes little sense.
However, I can see that there would be decent arguments both ways about this issue. Many cities have non-partisan elections, and they go on just fine that way. So I will also say that I oppose this particular effort because Mayor Bloomberg is funding the campaign in favor of it out of his own pocket. He's spending close to $2 million to push it, which I see as an abuse of power. If he's mayor, how is he allowed to fund anything like this? Clearly, if there is to be serious election reform, it needs to address the role of money, and not just how elections are run.
Beyond that, this is the latest in a series of stealth ballot initiatives, placed on the ballot with little fanfare, in years when no one is voting for anything else. A major change like this to the system requires time to think about it and debate it, and requires getting more people to vote, not less. This should have been delayed for a year, till the higher turnouts of a presidential election, and should have been treated with due thought.
Nonetheless, if you live in the city, I am urging you to make your voice heard one way or the other. This is too important to leave to others, and with the likelihood of a tiny turnout (made smaller by the strange location on the ballot of the initiatives), every vote will count. For more information from a source I trust, go to this link:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/issueoftheweek/20031103/200/618#5
However, I can see that there would be decent arguments both ways about this issue. Many cities have non-partisan elections, and they go on just fine that way. So I will also say that I oppose this particular effort because Mayor Bloomberg is funding the campaign in favor of it out of his own pocket. He's spending close to $2 million to push it, which I see as an abuse of power. If he's mayor, how is he allowed to fund anything like this? Clearly, if there is to be serious election reform, it needs to address the role of money, and not just how elections are run.
Beyond that, this is the latest in a series of stealth ballot initiatives, placed on the ballot with little fanfare, in years when no one is voting for anything else. A major change like this to the system requires time to think about it and debate it, and requires getting more people to vote, not less. This should have been delayed for a year, till the higher turnouts of a presidential election, and should have been treated with due thought.
Nonetheless, if you live in the city, I am urging you to make your voice heard one way or the other. This is too important to leave to others, and with the likelihood of a tiny turnout (made smaller by the strange location on the ballot of the initiatives), every vote will count. For more information from a source I trust, go to this link:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/issueoftheweek/20031103/200/618#5
(no subject)
Date: Nov. 3rd, 2003 11:52 am (UTC)Personally, I'm going to vote against it because bloomberg spammed me on it (I mean, really -6- separate mailings on the subject? How nice if him...), because it feels like a snow job, and because I don't actually want to end Democratic dominance of the city, however much of it is left.
I do think there's some merit to the idea (and it might very well rebound against its proponents, often ending up with two Democrats going against each other on Election Day), but also massive issues (like the money one -- with a wide open election, -every- candidate will need serious money rather than just those that get through the primaries).