[lbo-talk] FW: Help Defeat Question 3

[Michael Pollak]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:

> Can anyone explain why exactly the nonpartisan primaries favor Repugs
> over Democrats?

Of the hodgepodge of URL's appended to your question, I assume you are
referring to the Eric Schneiderman Op-Ed rerun by the Nation:

        URL: http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7

where actually Schneiderman refutes himself.  The "fifty years of academic
research showing that such elections favor the Republican Party" turn out
to have a caveat:  "except at very high levels of Democratic voter
registration."  Which of course includes New York, where Democrats
outnumber Republicans 5 to 1.  And probably includes most major cities.
Cities where Democrats don't have big advantage in registration are pretty
small cities as a rule.  Whether they are even comparable is question.
Also whether the non-partisan elections studied in the articles
Schneiderman cites are comparable to the semi-partisan system being
offered NYC.

The reason Schneiderman beats this drum is pretty clear, though.  Since
the majority of voters in NYC are registered Democrats, if they are
convinced that this change will help the Republicans, they'll vote against
it.  And since that's the gravamen of Bloomberg's arguments as well -- he
says the present system is unfair because it gives Democratic primary
electors extra weight -- it's hard to imagine how it can pass.  Why would
the majority of voters vote to give themselves less power?

But weirder things have happened.  Like him getting elected.  Bloomberg
showed himself a master of high-tech targeted mail campaigns when he ran
for mayor in 2001, and the sudden one he unleashed last week is
hyperprofessional.  Democrats are told it's good for Democrats,
Republicans that it's good for Republicans and third-partiers that it's
good for third partiers.

One thing is clear.  This is not the way to make fundamental changes to
the City Charter.  The entire process has been outrageous.  The only one
-- and I mean the *only* one -- funding the pro-side is Bloomberg himself,
to the tune of $2 million so far.  It's only on the ballot in the first
place because he appointed a rigged commission (whose chairman announced
its results before the other members were appointed).  And there has not
only been no discussion, but virtually no awareness of this issue until
the last two weeks, and turnout will be miniscule.  The whole thing stinks
of meglomaniacal plutocracy.

Of course the fact that it's so identified with him and that it emphasizes
his riches should be two more big strikes against it, since Bloomberg's
ratings are in the toilet and people seem especially to be resenting him
lately for being rich. But we'll see.  The one last outrageous thing is
that his name doesn't appear anywhere on the pro-side materials.

Michael