Subject: Fw: Schwarzenegger for NYC Mayor?/Vote "No"
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:12:59 -0500
To:       Theresa Valla <theresavalla@aol.com>,
From:     BARBARA SLITKIN <slitkin@msn.com>
This made it much clearer for me- maybe you too?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "NormanS" <normans@escape.com>
To: "NYC Direct Action Network" <dan@lists.riseup.nett>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:29 PM
Subject: Schwarzenegger for NYC Mayor?/Vote "No"


> ****PLEASE CIRCULATE*****
>
> Forwarded from Bill Koehnlein <bill@toplab.org>:
>
> Tomorrow's general election has generated little public=
 interest or media
> coverage, but there is a crucial ballot proposal that should=
 encourage
> progressive and left voters to come out for the vote.
>
> Question #3 is a proposal to overhaul the electoral system and=
 make
> "nonpartisan
> elections" the norm beginning in 2006. The way this system=
 would work is
that
> all candidates for any specific office would compete in the=
 September
primary,
> which would be open to all voters regardless of party=
 affiliation. In
other
> words, political party primaries would be eliminated and voters=
 would vote
for
> any candidate from any party. Non-affiliated ("independent")=
 voters would
also
> be permitted to vote in such a primary. Although each candidate=
 can opt to
list
> her/his party affiliation on the ballot, that is not a=
 requirement. The
two top
> primary vote getters then go on to compete in the November=
 general
election.
>
> Numerous articles which demonstrate why passage of this=
 proposal would be
bad
> for New York City have appeared in the last few weeks. This=
 scheme, pushed
by
> Bloomberg and big business interests, would diminish the=
 influence
> and political
> gains made by African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, immigrants,=
 labor and
other
> progressive forces. Further, it would allow wealthy celebrity
> candidates an even
> greater advantage in a city where billionaires rule. Arnold=
 Schwarzenegger
> would have more than a fighting chance to become NYC Mayor if=
 this
proposal is
> passed.
>
> In the debates around this issue, however, one crucial point=
 has not
> been widely
> discussed, and that is the impact passage would have on third=
 parties
> and fusion
> politics. Essentially, this proposal, if passed, would=
 eliminate political
> parties from the NYC scene. While few on the left would mourn=
 the
> passing of the
> Republicratic Party, third and minor parties would also be=
 impacted
negatively
> since party designations would become obsolete in the electoral=
 arena.
Parties
> of the left and the right--Working Families, Socialist Workers,=
 Green,
> Conservative, Right-to-Life, etc.--would no longer be able to=
 run
candidates
> under their party names. This would have a disastrous effect on=
 movements
which
> have been trying to create viable progressive third or=
 independent
parties.
>
> Also, since only the top two vote-getters in the September=
 primary would
be on
> the November ballot, third parties would no longer be able to=
 run
candidates in
> the general election.
>
> Further, passage of Question #3 would end fusion politics.=
 Fusion is
> a system of
> cross endorsements, where one party endorses a candidate of=
 another party.
> Sometimes, fusion endorsements have made a difference in the=
 electoral
outcome.
> The Working Families Party, for example, generally endorses=
 more or less
> progressive Democratic Party candidates and in some races where=
 the vote
has
> been very close a WFP endorsement has made a difference.
>
> Of course, the current party-based electoral system is far from=
 perfect
and
> third parties and independent progressive blocs are at a clear
> disadvantage. But
> passage of Question #3 would worsen this situation. The best
> solution, which has
> been discussed off and on over the last few years, but without=
 any serious
> consideration beyond the left, is to return to the old system=
 of
proportional
> representation. Under such a system each party receives a=
 certain number
of
> seats in a legislative body based on the number of votes it=
 received
> overall. In
> the 1940s, the proportional representation system allowed=
 Communist Party
> candidates Benjamin Davis (Harlem) and Peter Cacchione=
 (Brooklyn) to be
elected
> to the City Council. Proportional representation was ended=
 specifically
because
> of the presence of Communists in the Council.
>
> But that's another debate, and another political struggle. In=
 the
meantime, the
> immediate task at hand is to defeat Ballot Proposal Question #3=
 on
November 4.
> Vote "No" on Tuesday.
> --Bill Koehnlein
> <bill@toplab.org>
> Oct 29, 2003
>