Asymmetrical Information

Interesting, the same reason you are voting for it is the same reason I am voting against it...not because I am particularly endeared to Clinton and Rangle (sp?) but because I am VERY suspicious of any mayor who spends his own money to fund a campaign which says "hey, Democrats like this!" when that mayor is a republican AND doesn't put his name on the promotional piece.

I actually think it would hurt the republican party, since all those democrats would be able to vote in the "republican" primary.

On a related note, for years my Grandparents were registered Republicans...not because the ever voted with the Republican party (the last political conversation I had with my Grandad he referred to Christy Todd Whitman as that 'dreadful rich-*itch idiot'), but because in the area in New Jersey in which they lived, the elections took place during the Republican primary. Similarly, my husband, who is a Communist, is a registered democrat in NYC because he wants to vote in primaries. No law that says, for the purposes of voting in primaries in New York, you can't just register democrat, even if you're not one. None of your readers would ever know (unless they did a lexis-nexis search on you...but that can get expensive AND creepy).

I would have no problem if registered independants got to choose which primary they voted in, but I don't want republicans voting in the dem. primary, and vice versa.

I think this whole thing is being dealt with in a very back-handed fashion and, although I also have not completely thought it through, I can't think of any reason why I should vote for it.

Why should Members of party B be allowed to determine who Party A's candidate will be? Just because we don't like the choices that the party members make seems like a lousy (and unprincipled) reason to interfere in that process. It may not seem like a big deal for the two major parties since non-partisan voting doesn't often affect the outcome. But what if we forced third parties to hold open primaries. Would it be right to force the Green party to accept the results of a primary where their Members weren't even a majority of the voters?

Of course third parties, usually decide on their candidates in convention rather than in a primary but the two major parties could go that route also (and do in some states). I think this just further points out the essential fact of non-partisan primaries - it is non-member interference in a party choice. Political parties after all are not government-owned istitutions. They are private institutions that participate in public elections.

I agree that jurisdictions that don't have a competitive (or at least credible) opposition party tend to have poorly run governments - which explains why many so many cities are so poorly run. I don't agree that non-partisan primaries will fix that problem.

Interestingly (maybe) in my state (Virginia), we don't have partisan registration but to vote in a primary you have to sign a promise to vote for the party's candiate in November. Switching party registration or signing a promise is not much of barrier - but a least it encourages people to consider the nature of a primary vote.

Non-partisan elections are kind of pointless; everyone can tell which party the candidates here in Seattle really belong to. You effectively just turn your general election into a contest betewen the top two vote getters in a "single primary." In Seattle, that tends to be two Democrats, so probably the same would happen in New York.

As to why Republican candidates can't get elected, maybe they should run better candidates.

As I said, Jason, I'm sure that Democrats will continue to win. I'm just hoping that the Democrats will be more moderate and representative of the electorate, rather than the left-wing crazies we currently get.

Interestingly, the Baseball Crank, who certainly appears to be a Republican (or at least lean that way pretty heavily) is strongly urging people to vote "No on 3." (http://www.baseballcrank.com/archives/002218.php)

uh... kate, you're trying to make people listen to you, but you married a communist????

right

NYC would definitely benefit from non-partisan elections... see the massive corruption in the boroughs, where becoming a judge requires donating massive amounts of money to the dem party.

its purely to stop corruption (see staten ferry)... not letting republicans vote in dem primaries (they can still change their registration... like your commie hubby... wish there was huac still)

re communists...

i'm getting ads for faux news t-shirts and asking me to join nra blacklist in your blogad space

WTF..

I don't think I or many (if not most) of your readers are exactly the target for that...

different

Ahh, classic Jane. She admits that the doesn't know jack shit about the election, but is so certain that democrats are always wrong that she's wanting to vote the opposite of whatever they say.

It's sad really. Such a fine mine to waste in knee-jerk support of a corrupt and hateful (national) party just because you don't respect your family members.

Thanks for the props Bob (yes, I'm a Republican). I agree with Jane's diagnosis, but this McCain-Feingoldy "first, let's kill all the partisans" solution isn't the answer. Term limits hasn't got us very far either. I'd rather see the City Council stripped of a lot of authority, personally, and see more accountability for the mayor.

I was at PS 75 this morning. Seemed like a very low turnout - at 8:00 AM (usually prime pre-work voting time) there was no wait. In addition to voting for Prop. 3, I voted for Joshua Yablon, who was running for City Council on the Urban Republican Platform. He is one of those moderate Republicans who NY should have. He and his collegues' platform is Guliani-like - balancing the budget through spending cuts, school reform, charer schools, no changes to NY's social civil rights liberalism, City Council should avoid foreign affairs.

Likely, none of them will win, but I hope that by making a decent showing they might scare the Democrats into a platform closer to that of the average constituent than the typical Democrat activist.

It's sad really. Such a fine mine to waste in knee-jerk support of a corrupt and hateful (national) party just because you don't respect your family members.

My dear infantile bones, if you would bother wasting some small portion of your own fine mind on correcting pseudo-homonym errors rather than waving your pimpled fanny at our host, you might at least avoid coming across as a fatuous nitwit.

Speaking of which, reveal that pimpled fanny one more time. Dr. Rita Rational has sent a message regarding your progress in the 2003 Logical Reasoning Correspondence Curriculum, which I will deliver just as soon as I finish lacing up these boots.

We had serious Democratic Party campaigning here in the unfashionable outer borough of Queens. Fifteen politicos guarding all approaches to the local polling place from the proscribed distance, and handing out their No on Prop 3 fliers. Our local city councilor Eric Gioia was foremost. He's most famous for having been a high up in the NYS Gore 2000 campaign, and for having dated Karenna.

...but is so certain that democrats are always wrong that she's wanting to vote the opposite of whatever they say...

Maybe because... they almost always are wrong.

Well, despite Jane's best efforts, the non-partisan primary question is no longer in question...at latest report, it was defeated by about a 2-1/2-to-one margin: I think Kate's position above is one a lot of voters agreed with: If Mayor Mike is all gung-ho for it, there must be a catch in it someplace, so vote it down.
That said, however, Jane (as usual) is right-on in her analysis; but seems to have missed one rather important point: despite the skew to the left in the NYC Democratic primary process, small-d democracy has tended to act a brake on the system: when the decision has been left up to the electorate at large, at least in recent years, they have tended to reject the Demo-machine candidate for the mayoralty (the only public office in NYC with any substantive power) in favor of a (at-least-nominal) Republican - first Giuliani, then Bloomberg. They were, of course, hardly Tom DeLay-style Repubs, but at least they were not the Zombies of Tammany Hall who still roam the clubhouses here.

Jane,
Perversely enough, from what I've seen in Evanston, Illinois and read of politics elsewhere, I doubt that nonpartisan primaries are going to have the increased effect of accountability that you hope for but rather the reverse. The zombie voters that your local Machine digs up will still duly turn out to vote for whatever slate your local Machine offers while the average citizen will merely be less likely to vote in primary and general election altogether. And you can't really blame him since the alliances that exist in such an atmosphere are harder to track than party affiliation. In such an atmosphere change becomes less likely rather than more likely since charisma and popularity are now the only ways a challenger can hope to unseat an incumbant and getting an entire allied slate like that is a harder than getting people to vote for the party in opposition to the party in power. On the rare occasions that it happens it simply evolves into "Meet the New Boss, Same as the old Boss!" because now *they* are the ones harder to track and nearly impossible to remove. One important thing in favor of party labels is that the voter at least has a reasonable idea of what flavor of dunderhead candidates is available as an option and has an important reference label in keeping track of the way the formal lines of power run. But when primaries and elections become nonpartisan you lose even that. Only when it's gone do you appreciate how important it had been.

While I can be wrong, have been wrong, and doubtless will be wrong in the future, it seems to me that the facts that you cite are an example of neither party having the proper knowledge as to where their best interests really lie. An established ruling clique that would like to rule until the Trump of Doom should push this for all they're worth while a party that is out of power but would someday like to have it should scream bloody murder at the prospect of having this done to them. Oh well, assuming that's the case I hope the good duys will win in spite of themselves! ^_~

- S.P.M.

I voted against the resolution, which lost decisively. What tipped the balance for me were the numerous (about 10) phone calls I got from live or recorded voices hectoring me to vote Yes.

However, the following comment

I actually think it would hurt the republican party, since all those democrats would be able to vote in the "republican" primary.

is confusing. The point of this proposal was that there wouldn't be any more party primaries, not that Democrats and Republicans would be allowed to vote in each other's primaries.

I surprised Jason, living in Seattle, hasn't heard that the "open primary" format which Washington used for years and years has been ruled unconstitutional:

Cal. Dem. Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000).

I'm a Washington expat who loved the open primary because I could vote for someone I liked, and thus hopefully shove both parties toward where I want them. But it's gone now, and the debate about how to replace it has been going on for some time.

If Prop. 3 had passed, there's a good chance it would have been struck down by the courts.

My hometown of Houston has city elections sans parties and it works quite well. It forces the voters to vote for a candidate and not a party. They also don't hold a primary. Polling usually gets the lower ranked candidates out before the general election. In yesterday's election, three candidates ran, and one was elimiated. The top two vote getters will now vie for the Mayor's office in second vote to take place in about a month.

I think in New York the problem is the primary system. Eliminate the primary and let the general election determine these citywide elections.

Ken Silber --
Interestingly enough I didn't know that until after my initial post, as none of the lit. I'd received on the subject had actually explained what was going to happen or what the purpose was. I educated myself later, before I went to the polls.

Jay C. --
I would also like to clarify one point. I did not vote against Prop 3 BECAUSE Mayor Mike wanted it. I PARTIALLY voted against it because Mayor Mike was for it and as a way of getting it passed he 1) Spent $2 million dollars which was not initially disclosed; 2) Did not put his name on any of the lit which he sent out telling people to vote "yes"; 3) Did not explain in that material what the purpose of non-partisan elections was; 4) Misleadingly claimed that "democrats" supported the idea. If he had given me the facts and allowed me to make up my own mind...even with a spin, I might have voted for it (although, after some follow up research, I suspect I wouldn't have anyway). But the whole way it was presented to me, as a registered Dem, was so sneaky, it made me instantly distrustful of the purpose and motives.

Marc--
When I was at PS75 at about 7pm, there was pretty much no line and I was 175 to vote in my district. About half of the turnout in the Presidential election in 2000.

Hey --
Yes I married a communist. He likes to root for the loosing group. He's also a Red Sox fan. You don't pick who you fall in love with.

Louisiana (born and raised) has this system, as does Houston (currently live). It doesn't work very well at all, and certainly accomplishes none of the positive attributes it's supporters claim.

It's biggest flaw is the difficulty of gaming the system in the primaries -- there are a much larger number of outcomes, hinging on just a few percentage points of the vote, which makes the primaries very unstable. The result of this is that it is much easier for extreme candidates and positions to acquire legitimacy.

Two recent, high-profile examples illustrate this, and illustrate that the same flaw is present even in very different electorates: The David Duke/Edwin Edwards runoff in Louisiana. The Chirac/Le Pen runoff in France.

In both cases, the problems came from an inability of the voters and parties to game the system -- in both cases, a marginal candidate made it to the runoff over much more mainstream candidates who were fighting over a common voter pool. Because of the pluralities involved, a percentage here or there for any candidate would have left Duke and Le Pen in well-deserved obscurity, and in a traditional primary, the dangers would have become obvious far enough before the primary for the party and voters to develop a strategy for dealing with it.

Michael Parker: There are ways of getting around the problem you describe, though I haven't seen any of them in action. The lately popular one is the "instant runoff," where voters rank, say, their top five candidates in order of preference. If there's no majority in the first round, the bottom candidate is bumped and his/her votes assigned to the voters' second choices. If still no majority, bump the next one and repeat, using third, fourth &c. choices if a voter's second choice was already bumped. Keep eliminating until someone has a majority.

It's a scheme that seems — on paper, at least — to avoid the vote-splitting that favors extremists. Has anyone seen it implemented anywhere?

Yes I married a communist. He likes to root for the loosing group. He's also a Red Sox fan. You don't pick who you fall in love with.

Kate, it doesn't seem to me that Communism is equivalent to a "losing group"; more like second place, behind liberal capitalism. If he really liked losers, wouldn't he be a Baathist, or a Whig, or maybe a Carthaginian?

Michelle, the difficulty with instant runoff is that you have to record every ballot - not just the totals - or else run all the ballots through again after each elimination. Electronic voting machines could do it, but might need new software and memory expansions. With a half-dozen or more candidates in many elections, punch-card ballots or optical scanner ballots would wear out before the job was done.

Nor would it prevent the centrists from being knocked out first, leaving the final contest between the opposite extremists, if the numbers broke that way. However, in American politics it would take a truly terrible centrist candidate to come in third against right and left wing nuts...(By the way, since someone mentioned Chirac/Le Pen, as if this was a case of the centrists losing: by French standards, Chirac isn't extreme at anything, except possibly self-aggrandizement. The shock was that the major leftist candidate was knocked out in the first round, leaving the run-off between a centrist crook and a damned-near-fascist.)

markm: I would think that you could use, say, optical-scan ballots, and then put the data into a computer program that would tabulate the results "round" by "round" until there was a winner. You wouldn't have to run the ballots through repeatedly, just once, to get all the voters' preferences on record. From then on you'd just have to winnow down the candidate list with the data already in hand.

One problem that does occur to me is that it would be impossible to start the "second round" until every last ballot in the "first round" was counted. In your ordinary election the winner is typically declared before most of the votes are even tabulated; I don't think you could do that with instant-runoff, at least not in a race with three or more serious candidates in it.

Hi Jane.

The current system is not ideal. But the #3 fix would only have helped non-Democratic Party members. If Bloomberg had proposed something sophisticated, instead of something barbaric and entirely one-sided I might have gone for it.

And, Jane, your supposition that a bunch of welfare queens are the main primary voters makes you sound 1. ignorant and 2. like a histrionic fascist alarmist.

"Kate, it doesn't seem to me that Communism is equivalent to a "losing group"; more like second place, behind liberal capitalism. If he really liked losers, wouldn't he be a Baathist, or a Whig, or maybe a Carthaginian?"

Don't give him ideas!!!!!

I'm suprised that nobody here mentioned approval voting. It is vastly superior to both instant runoff (where ranking a candidate higher can, in some instances, cause them to lose) and the current plurality voting.

See: http://approvalvoting.org/

Joe: As far as I can see from the site you link, "approval voting" involves checking off the candidates that you'd be prepared to live with. Interesting. I wonder if it'd fly; most people who strongly support one candidate want to express that somehow, not throw him/her into a list of "acceptables." But it has its attractions.

I remember another interesting proposal, in which every voter got as many votes as there were candidates, and could distribute them any way s/he pleased. That is, you could give them all to one candidate, or some to one and some to another — or, if you wanted to express the futility of the process, one to each.

That doesn't solve the "spoiler" problem, but it does mitigate it. And it allows people to rank their preferences as approval voting does not.

(I heard of this in an article in the late and sorely lamented magazine The Sciences a couple decades ago. I wish I had a copy by me, but I don't.)

Comments are Closed.