Subject: Re: Schwarzenegger for NYC Mayor?/Vote "No" Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:07:13 -0500 To: Bob Armstrong From: James Fenner McConnell This is too much for me to read. > From: Bob Armstrong > Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:47:31 -0500 > To: slitkin@msn.com, Theresa Valla ,= sheenru yong > , Shelley Haven ,= Sabine > , Robert Ember , Pat= Smith > , Nick , "Mr.= Melody (R)" > , lynn samuels= , LEW - ZZPOPZZ > , Karen Marston ,= Karen Levine > , JulieHarveyNYC@aol.com, Jeff Wright > , jeanette richards= , James Fenner > McConnell , Diana Milla= > Subject: Re: Fw: Schwarzenegger for NYC Mayor?/Vote "No" > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:12:59 -0500, BARBARA SLITKIN wrote: >> =A0This made it much clearer for me- maybe you too? >> =A0----- Original Message ----- >> =A0From: "NormanS" >> =A0To: "NYC Direct Action Network" > > Much of what is said here is simply false . It is only the > rulers , such as Denny Farrel , of the Democrat monopoly who > gain by the current disenfranchisement of every other group . > > Specifically false are the following : > >>> This scheme ... would diminish the influence=A0and political >> =A0>=A0gains made by African Americans, Hispanics, Asians,= immigrants, >>> labor and=A0other=A0progressive forces. > > The Only group advantaged by the current system are the= professional > politicians . > >>> Further, it would allow wealthy celebrity=A0candidates an even >> =A0>=A0greater advantage in a city where billionaires rule. > > Ridiculous . > Remember this proposal was largely motivated by Lenora Fulani= , > http://www.speaking.com/speakers/lenorafulani.html , > who's main thrust is "Black political independence" . > > One hard to find detail , which I mention in my comments > in the NYC Voter Guide linked below , is that the threshold for= ballot > access will be 900 petition signatures for any group as opposed= to 900 > for major parties and 2700 for third parties and independents= . > It is the current system which is biased towards Daddy Bigbucks= . > >>> Arnold Schwarzenegger=A0would have more than a fighting chance= to >>> become NYC Mayor if this=A0proposal is=A0passed. > > So ? What's the problem , that he's not a professional= politician ? > He has the money to do a Bloomberg or a Corzine anyway . > >>> third and minor parties would also be impacted=A0negatively >> =A0>=A0since party designations would become obsolete in the= electoral arena. >> =A0> Parties=A0of the left and the right--Working Families,= Socialist Workers, >>> Green,=A0Conservative, Right-to-Life, etc.--would no longer be= able to run >>> candidates=A0under their party names. > > Simply FALSE . Party labels are optional and certainly= Libertarians > will provide their identification . > >> =A0>=A0Also, since only the top two vote-getters in the September= primary would >> =A0> be on=A0the November ballot, third parties would no longer be= able to run >>> candidates in=A0the general election. > > This is true . The real action would likely be in the September= round . > But That would be far more competitive . You would actually get= debates . > >> =A0>=A0Further, passage of Question #3 would end fusion politics.= Fusion is >> =A0>=A0a system of=A0cross endorsements, where one party endorses a= candidate of >>> another party. > > False . Labels are not eliminated . > >> =A0>=A0Of course, the current party-based electoral system is far= from perfect >> =A0> and=A0third parties and independent progressive blocs are at= a clear >> =A0>=A0disadvantage. > > RIGHT ! > >>> proportional=A0representation. Under such a system each party= receives a >>> certain number=A0of=A0seats in a legislative body based on the= number of >>> votes it received=A0overall. >>> Proportional representation was ended specifically=A0because >> =A0>=A0of the presence of Communists in the Council. >> =A0>=A0But that's another debate, and another political struggle. > > Interesting history I did not know . Proportional= representation replaces > district locality with city-wide aggregation . So there is a= trade off . > > Instant runoff elections are another possibility . > But those Are other debates . > > > Unless you believe in the Democrat Establishment monopoly which= leaves > 1.3 million of us with no choice , vote YES . > > --=A0 > =A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864 > Restore our Right to Relax : > =A0http://ny.lp.org/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?Against_the_Smoking_Ban > > =A0Vote against your incumbent . If you believe in individual= Liberty > > =A0And vote For open primaries . My commentary in the voters= guide : >= http://nyccfb.info/debates_vg/voter_guides/general_2003/ballot_p= roposal/statem > ents_3_pro.htm#armstrong > > Computing Environment : =A0http://CoSy.com/CoSy/ > A WTC vision : http://CoSy.com/CoSy/ConicAllConnect/ > > Liberty : http://CoSy.com/Liberty.htm > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02003/11/03 9:56:58 PM >