> 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