Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 4
So, I filled out my vote-by-mail ballot for NY today, and:
1. I notice there are two lines with identical candidates for all office: Republican and Conservative. But there's only one line for Democratic candidates. That strikes me as unfair. Why do republicans get two? Shouldn't there at least be a "Liberal" line that duplicates all the Democratic line candidates?
Note: well, there is the "Working Families" line that duplicates the Democratic candidates for Pres/Veep and Senator, but the rest of the offices are blank.
2. For all he judge positions - Supreme, County, Family, District - there's only one candidate name for Democratic, Republican and Conservative, and they're all the same. Are all the judges running unopposed? Are judges not party affiliated?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Are all the judges running unopposed? Are judges not party affiliated?
There's usually a larger number of judges competing for a lesser number of seats. I google the names and see what comes up on them.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I notice there are two lines with identical candidates for all office: Republican and Conservative.
...there is the "Working Families" line that duplicates the Democratic candidates for Pres/Veep and Senator, but the rest of the offices are blank.
-----------------
Whaaaaaaaa?
What ON EARTH could be the purpose and motivation for this? Who gets to pick the secondary labels for each party? It isn't the job of the Secretary of State to provide "secondary branding" for ANY party.
Again, this is an argument for having MORE standards nationwide in voting. That's not the same as the federal government RUNNING elections, only ensuring greater consistency and enforceability of basic election integrity across all states and territories. Any American moving from any state to any other state should not be surprised or require special training and acclimation about how to register to vote, how to confirm one's ongoing registration and how to fill out a ballot, whether in person on election day or via mail-in ballot.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 2
Again, this is an argument for having MORE standards nationwide in voting. That's not the same as the federal government RUNNING elections, only ensuring greater consistency and enforceability of basic election integrity across all states and territories.
You'd have to change the Constitution to do that, though. States set the rules for elections, not the federal government - and if they want to have processes or ballots that are completely different from those of other states, they're allowed to do that.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 1
There's usually a larger number of judges competing for a lesser number of seats. I google the names and see what comes up on them.
Except in this case, for each office, there are exactly the same number of candidates listed as you're allowed to vote for based on the "Vote for up to N" text for each office.
No. of Recommendations: 3
New York is one of the few states that allows cross-filing for candidates in partisan elections. You can run in the primary for more than one party. The Democrats and Republican candidates will at times compete for the nomination of one of the minor parties, so that they can have that indication of their support on the ballot:"
In New York the main candidates are usually the Democratic and Republican nominees, and the support of various minor parties is demonstrated by winning their nomination as well. For example, Republican nominees often attempt to win the nomination of the Conservative Party of New York as well. One rare exception was in 1944, when New York Congressman Vito Marcantonio was successful in winning both the Republican and Democratic Party primaries, assuring his re-election.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-filingNew York is also unusual for electing judges in
partisan elections, rather than as non-partisan retention elections. So if a judge is running unopposed or with token opposition, presumably they enter the primary for all of the parties that appear on the ballot, which would explain why their names appear three times on the ballot. They are the candidate for all of the parties at once.
No. of Recommendations: 2
New York is one of the few states that allows cross-filing for candidates in partisan elections.
New York is also unusual for electing judges in partisan elections, rather than as non-partisan retention elections.
Albably, is there nothing you don't already know about or can suss out by a keen google search in a few minutes? 😊
However, your post is Greek to me. And I'd guess less than 1 out of 100 NY voters know anything about this. 😟
No. of Recommendations: 3
Albaby, is there nothing you don't already know about or can suss out by a keen google search in a few minutes?
You'll make me blush!
However, your post is Greek to me.
Oh, sorry. Here's a slightly more detailed explanation:
Generally speaking, in partisan races with multiple parties, each party get to choose their own nominee. So if there's a Democratic party, a Republican party, and an Albabian party, each of those parties get to nominate someone. When all three parties nominate their own separate candidates, you end up with three lines on the ballot with three different people.
In most states, you cannot seek the nomination of more than one party in the same race. If you're the Democratic party nominee, you can't also be the Albabian party nominee - and vice versa. So the same person would never appear in multiple ballot lines, since appearing as the nominee for one party would preclude being the candidate for another party.
In New York and a few other states, though, you can seek the nomination of more than one party. If you successfully get nominated by more than one party, you will appear as the candidate for more than one party.
So some of the candidates on your ballot were able to get the nomination from two parties - and the judicial candidates appear to have secured the nomination of all the parties (presumably because there were no other material candidates).
No. of Recommendations: 1
So some of the candidates on your ballot were able to get the nomination from two parties - and the judicial candidates appear to have secured the nomination of all the parties (presumably because there were no other material candidates).
------------
Stated another way, in a race where a candidate does not want to appear partisan, they can attempt to gain a nomination from more than one party and have that party's name appear on the ballot if the party concurs. Seems like it would be common for judge slots, county council positions, county prosecutor, etc. It doesn't seem odd that many races might go uncontested from one party but it does seem odd that candidate would spend the time getting a nomination from the "opposing" party. If they have any thought of running for higher office later, a Republican seeking a Democratic nomination in a lower uncontested race might still see that come back to haunt them when they run for Attorney General or Governor or Congress where things ARE partisan. Same would be true the other way.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 1
So some of the candidates on your ballot were able to get the nomination from two parties - and the judicial candidates appear to have secured the nomination of all the parties (presumably because there were no other material candidates).
Thanks. I guess it wasn't so hard to understand after all. But I still find it very strange that every single one of the 16 judge positions available has apparently been nominated by all three parties (dem, rep, conservative), and apparently is also running unopposed.
