A bit hyperbolic to say that that's the format of the recall, isn't it? Local elections in California have the exact same system, and I haven't perceived the consequence you describe, Nathan. (Full disclosure: I work for a local elected official in CA.) It's a fun argument, but in Los Angeles I think the result is that districts with overwhelming partisan majorities don't have heated primaries leading to coronation-elections. Top two vote-getters duke it out.

Of course, having non-partisan elections means that "similar views on issues" has a different meaning than the hot-button policy issues of partisan politics. Contentious developments pop up as issues, but elections rise and fall on who can connect with a community. That's the hard work of attending neighborhood meetings, etc.

I like the primary-runoff system. It means incumbents can be challenged by holding them to beneath 50% of the vote in a crowded field, giving the second-place candidate another chance to prove his or her stuff in the runoff. And I like the non-partisan City Council, although I'm not clear that you'll have that development as well.

I lived a long time in California and was accustomed to non-partisan local elections. But here in New York, there's a different angle to what the Mayor is attempting. We have "fusion" here. It's not allowed in all states, but what it means is that one candidate can be endorsed by more than one party. So, for instance, the Democratic candidate for Governor might appear on the ballot three or four times, once as the Democratic nominee, once as the Working Families Party nominee, once as the Liberal Party nominee (in the old days when the Liberal Party was actually both liberal and a party), etc. This enables minor parties to exist and have influence on the process, because the major-party candidates want to appear on as many ballot lines as possible.

Part of what Bloomberg is up to is killing the parties in NYC. That, according to the conventional wisdom, will help Republicans immensely. There are several reasons for this, but one is that the Democratic Party and other left-of-center parties have lots of loyal voters and footsoldiers for getting out the vote and similar tasks. Republicans don't have those things so much in New York City, but they do have money. So if you drop the party labels and give the parties less influence on the process, the idea is that you'll hurt Democrats.

So whether Nathan is right about the cattle-call effect nonpartisan elections would (or wouldn't) have, the issue in New York isn't whether nonpartisan is a good way to go in theory. As a practical matter the proposal is not intended to be neutral but to help conservatives (or what pass for conservatives here) and hurt liberals. That's the reason a lot of folks on the left, and particularly those involved in party politics, have been against this.

Now, that sounds evil. Thanks for the clarification. Nathan, cool it on the West-Coast-hatin', ok?

Hey Josh- I love California. Lived there for eight years.

This is why a vote counting system like Condorcet is better than instant runoff. Compare each candidate _individually_ to every other candidate. In most cases, there is one candidate whom a majority prefer over any other candidate (the compositition of the majority will vary depending on who the other candidate is, of course). And there are fair counting methods to deal with more complex results. This solves the problem of popular candidates being eliminated early due to vote splitting, and isn't any more complicated for the voters.

8020 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

8165 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com