Search
Instant Run-off's Gonna Get You
Anthony Weiner's concession in advance of the Democratic primary run-off is the best possible result of Tuesday's election, and not least of which because I have no intention of voting for Whitey (whatever name he may go by).
Freddy Ferrer, whose campaign has been rather timid until now, deserves the chance to finally take on Mayor Mike directly, without diminished strength and campaign funds. His "two New Yorks" theme from four years ago was exactly the message that voters deserved, and I will always appreciate that Freddy didn't back down on September 12, insisting that nothing had changed. We still had then, and still have now after four years of Bloomberg, a city of inconceivable riches that is pushing its poor and desperate farther out into the margins. If Freddy campaigns like a populist from now until November, our CEO Mayor may yet get fired.

Better yet, the possibility of wasting $12 million in taxpayer money on an unnecessary run-off election opens the possibility for significant election reform. It's time to put proportional representation back on the agenda. Taxpayer outrage was a significant, if not primary, factor in San Francisco's recent switch to instant run-off voting (elections by ranked ballot, where the votes for the lowest vote-getting candidate are redistributed to the next choice listed on each ballot until a candidate finally achieves a majority vote). It could be here, too. The gradual demographic shifts in the city virtually ensure lots more run-off elections, with a splintered, Balkanized electorate unable to elect majority candidates.
Those run-off elections are bad for democracy, too, for how divisive they can be. Four years ago, when Ferrer had to face Mark Green in a run-off, Green's campaign played the race card, using fears of Al Sharpton to galvanize the white suburban vote. Green won the primary, but lost support and lost the election. But Whitey won anyway.
That wouldn't happen in an instant runoff vote. A candidate must appeal to his rivals' supporters for their second and third place votes in order to prevail in multiple rounds of counting. Divisiveness doesn't work if you're simply a plurality, nor does painting certain candidates (the wild ones, with the kooky lefty ideas) as "spoilers." Voters could finally vote their conscience and their true preference, and candidates would have to emphasize common ground and areas of agreement.




i'm totally ignorant
of how these voting laws get changed. is it legislation passed by city council and signed by the mayor? or is it charter revision? or does albany control it? i was ranting on tuesday night about the need for IRV. luckily weiner conceded, but if he hadn't it would have been 2001 all over again. NYC needs to start leading again. we're always 10 steps and 10 years behind california--and losing ground.
Charter revision.
Charter revision.
Great Idea
Get on the horn with Joel Rivera, Chair of the Charter Reform Committee in City Council. Councilman Robert Jackson would surely help too.
Gale Brewer is out on term limits, but her legislative record is one of election reform - she is the one who proposed allowing 17 yr-olds the right to vote in City elections. She would help.
Good news is there HAS been election reform on the docket for the committee. So it's not unprecedented. It was put there by Bloomberg and the Independence Party when those crazies had their quid pro quo come due in 2001.
Great idea. Keep a copy of that Daily News so when people (the press)forget how outraged the press was, we can remind them. Just in time for a vote on IRV.