I'm working on a Green Party City Council campaign in Brooklyn and we're in the signature gathering phase. 'More fun than humans are allowed to have', as my ex-wife was fond of saying of odious tasks. But while we are gathering signatures to be on the ballot for the general election, the Democrates have been gathering signatures to be on the ballot for their primary, which preceeds the general election by almost two months. Now I find it odd that the number of signatures they are required to obtain FOR THEIR PRIMARY is set by law. Why is it a function of governmental legistation how a political party chooses it's nominee to be on the ballot? And why is there a discrepancy between the number of signatures we have to collect and that they have to collect (we need three times the number they do)? The government should set a standard, applicable to all, to be on the ballot for the general election. Period.
In fact, why do we, the general public, PAY for their primary? And yes, we DO pay for their primary. The voting machines are re-set, (programed now) delivered, off-loaded, set up, and 'personed' at tax-payer expense--and that comes to MILLIONS of dollars here in NYC. Plus, in NYC, the locations are almost all public buildings--used free of charge by the political parties for their primaries.
Now, I don't have a problem with the idea of a primary, or even with the public's equipment and locations being used for a primary. But why are WE paying for it, rather than the Democratic Party? (The Republicans are in such a minority here that they have a hard time getting people to run and so don't generally have primaries in NYC.) There are a number of ways to choose your candidate, the primary being one--and perhaps the most 'democratic'--but why is the general public called on to PAY for the way in which the Democrats choose the candidates they're going to run in the general election?
There are other models. Think of the Iowa caucuses. That doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime. There are a HECK of a lot of us that are not registered in either of the major political parties, and yet, when it comes to the parties choosing the candidates they're gonna run in the general election, WE have to pay for it.
If the major parties want to use public facilities and equipment to hold their primaries, then they should be charged market rate for the use of that equipment and those locations. It certainly shouldn't come from the public coffers.
Jonathan Fluck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A very intriguing post, Jonathan! It inspired me to add a few historical notes:
ReplyDeleteWe have to thank the People's Party (usu. called the Populist Party) of the late 19th Century for *primary elections*--also the direct election of U.S. senators, voter initiatives, referendums, the progressive income tax, and recall elections.
The half-success of the Populists in the 1890s led not only to the public adoption of several elements of their platform, but also to the Jim Crow segregation laws--which for the most part were passed long after the end of Reconstruction. The Populists managed to win several elections in the West and South, notably with a black/white coalition in North Carolina. The Democratic Party reacted with savage appeals to white supremacy, beginning in Georgia, and after the Populists endorsed Democrat William Jennings Bryan for president in 1896, the Democrats were able to absorb white Populists and marginalize black Populists.
(Amazingly enough, the Democrat history that appears on the Party website--democrats.org--used to leap from the formation of the Democratic National Committee in 1848 to the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912, a 64-year gap in history of the Republic! In the last couple of months, a paragraph on William Jennings Bryan, his endorsement of women's suffrage and various Populist proposals, and the assimilation of immigrants into the big city political machines has been inserted into that enormous gap--and no, they don't use the word "machine." Woodrow Wilson's opposition to women's suffrage still goes unmentioned.)
All those Populist manifestations of hope (ooh!) and change (ahh!) were intended to distribute more "power to the people." However, the truly arcane signature and petition requirements for getting one's name onto a primary ballot in New York are deliberately constructed as an incumbent protection system--so the proposal of the Populists, a third party, ironically functions as a barrier to other third parties.
Regarding primary elections as a purely private affair has been tried before: The Democratic Party in the South regarded itself as a private organization and its primaries as invitation-only events--black voters were not invited. The Supreme Court finally banned white primaries in 1944.
And you're right, Jonathan--the Iowa caucuses cost the taxpayer nothing. On the other hand, the only people who can vote in them have to meet in their precinct between 6:30 and 7 p.m.--no voting before going to work, no dashing out to vote during your lunch break, and if you have a night job or can't find a babysitter, tough! The Republicans usually finish in 60 or 90 minutes, since their procedures are fairly simple, but the Democrats can conceivably be there all night--which tends to overweight the opinions of people who over-involve themselves in politics to compensate for their unhappy personal lives. (Present company excepted, of course.)
I had no idea about the signature thing--that's really interesting. I certainly agree that a standard should be set for all!
ReplyDeleteAlso, good point about the public facilities and equipment.
I am for the public paying for everything as it pertains to voting and I feel that no charges should be applied to any candidate for any reason.
ReplyDeleteWhen candidates have to sell their souls and their candidacy to the highest bidders, then the banks and the Commerce chambers and the Corporations run the show from beginning to end. They call the shots.
Of course, you are talking about the gutless Democratic and Republican strongarming of the citizens but still, I believe that this could be to our advantage in the end if it becomes a practice. I believe that when the public takes over total control of all costs pertaining to elections, then, and only then, can we have fair elections.
On the other hand, much of the money that is paid in the elections is paid to destroy candidates and blacken their name. That is another issue. Perhaps as long as there is a free for all in this area, democracy can never be achieved.
In Minneapolis, we are about to use ranked choice voting for the first time for city elections. This eliminates the need for primaries altogether!
ReplyDeleteWill keep you posted on how this works out in November, but already we are seeing multiple candidates filing for each office, including multiple Democrats whether or not they received their party's endorsement.