Although the book focuses narrowly on NYC political history and current politics, some of the arguments rise to a more philosophical level. Barry argues, for example, that nonpartisan elections are more likely to produce moderates who can win by virtue of their policy proposals and personal appeal to voters, while partisan elections are much more likely to offer either ideological extremists or party hacks controlled by party bosses and machines.
As Henry Stern points out, another benefit of nonpartisan primaries is that candidates would be free to state their authentic beliefs, and could then state the same beliefs in the general election. In partisan primaries, however, candidates must "frame" their beliefs to appeal to the more extreme voters who tend to turnout in primaries. Then they must use yet another "frame" for the more moderate voters who wait to turnout in the general election. Will the real candidate please stand up?
Barry contends that the moderates who could win in nonpartisan primaries would be more pragmatic, and more concerned with the general good, but party hacks and ideological and issue extremists would have an agenda that might be against the public interest. Barry avoids a discussion of national politics, but I find a consideration of current congressional politics irresistible.
What if the US Congress was elected in a non-partisan process? If that system had a moderating affect on office-holders, surely the national interest would rise to the top of the legislative agenda, and partisan bickering would fade.
Barry suggests that "nonpartisan elections could create a more cooperative spirit within City Hall" (page 266). Wouldn't that be nice to see within our Congress? Today, presidential appointments are held hostage in the Senate for no better reason than to try to pressure the executive to appoint more people from the minority party (currently the Republicans). Federal courts are going without judges, and agency administrations are woefully under staffed as the backlog of unapproved nominations lingers. Legislation of all sorts, in both House and Senate, is being sabotaged for purely partisan reasons, and the public interest suffers.
Barry marshals empirical evidence showing that in numerous big cities in the US nonpartisan election processes have opened the doors to women and minority candidates, and have broken the hold that special interests had once held on those local governments.
OMG what if that could be done at the national level?
Partisans, non-party identifiers, third party identifiers, and independents will benefit greatly from reading this book. One day, hopefully soon, independents and concerned citizens who are outsiders to the two-party system, may have an opportunity to decide whether nonpartisan elections are the best way to go for all public offices, local, state, and federal. Barry's book will prepare the reader to understand the issues, and to make an informed choice.
[i] The Scandal of Reform, Francis S. Barry (Rutgers UP, NJ 2009), page 154 passim.
[ii] Ralph Nader worries that the Dems and Repubs will dominate in nonpartisan primaries because they have more money to spend on name recognition for their candidates. So, what's new about that? Nader fails to see the advantage offered. In fact, all candidates will have equal advertising where it counts: on the ballot. For those who pass the signature requirement, the ballot may read "Smith, Socialist" and "Jones, Tea Party." This is equal exposure to "Frankenstein, Democrat," and "Dracula, Republican." Voters can disregard the ads outside the ballot, and select in private from the menu they see on the ballot. On top of that, CA's Voter Information Guide provides equal space for candidate's statements. So, with Prop 14 there is no partisan advantage, everything is even Steven; or, even Ralph!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
