Elected officials and various party leaders declare nonpartisan elections are bad for Brooklyn

Borough President Marty Markowitz joined today with other Brooklyn elected officials and leaders from the State Conservative Party to urge Brooklynites and all New Yorkers to say no to “Question 3” on November 4th – the Mayor’s unfair and confusing proposal for nonpartisan elections.

“No matter how you dress it up, nonpartisan elections are a blatant attempt by the Republicans to attack the last Democratic stronghold in New York State,” Borough President Markowitz said. “Why is this only being discussed in a city dominated by Democrats? Are Republicans rallying for this across the State? Is Governor Pataki proposing nonpartisan elections for Peekskill? This proposal is incredibly confusing and unfair. Candidates would not even be required to list their party label on the ballots. Who would buy a car without knowing the manufacturer? If the Mayor has his way, you could drive away with a Yugo, when you thought you bought a Cadillac. There is also no definitive connection between eliminating party primaries and increasing voter turnout. This will not benefit minorities; it will deprive them of the tremendous gains they have made through the party system. Instead, it will benefit wealthy or famous candidates at the expense of grass roots community activists. Are there some problems with our current system - yes. But you don’t weaken democracy, you strengthen it. And strong political parties equal a strong democracy. Brooklynites it’s as easy as one, two, three. Vote no on Question Three!”

Some Facts About Nonpartisan Elections:

Prevent New Yorkers from participating in party primaries and choosing their party’s nominee. Party primaries have long been our way of ensuring that voters get to choose their party’s candidates, who serve as the party’s ambassador to the general electorate. That’s how voters get to shape their own party’s future. If ballot “Question 3” is adopted, rank and file voters would lose that power.

Favor wealthy candidates. While wealthy candidates can always buy their way on to the ballot – regular New Yorkers are benefited by strong grassroots parties to help them get elected. Why would we change our election system to favor wealthy candidates? Don't they have it easy enough already?

Harm New York City’s landmark campaign finance system – a system that has given middle-class and working-class candidates the same opportunity to run for office that wealthy candidates have. The former Chair of New York City’s Campaign Finance Board voted against putting “Question Three: City Elections” on the ballot because he was concerned about “the dangers this fundamental change poses for New York City’s Campaign Finance program.”

Make it harder for minority candidates to win elections – David Dinkins has said he never would have been elected mayor if not for party primaries. Our current election system, with its party primaries, enhances the influence of minorities in our political system. Just think about it – today 24 of 51 City Council members, three of the five Borough Presidents, and the powerful City Comptroller are all people of color. By eliminating party primaries, “Question Three” would undermine the influence minorities have in our city elections and in electing candidates of their choice.

Make our elections more like the California Recall. Under the proposed city elections system, individual Democratic, Republican and other party primaries would be eliminated and replaced by a consolidated September “primary” that operates like the “free-for-all” recall election of the California Governor. A run-off between the top two vote getters would follow in November.