So, it is here. It is fitting that my local polling place is at a public school, which have the ultimate purpose of educating future voters. No long lines and recently there seemed to be an affirmative action move to stock a few people under sixty among poll workers. No identification requirement -- you sign a book (they supply the pen). I assume this arguably opens up some possibility of fraud (my signature is not exactly hard to forge), but studies show that concern is overblown overall. [If anything, absentee ballots are most likely to be a problem, and many pushing for id requirements also support them -- a bit suspicious.]
Here in NYC, we are using lever machines, a 19th Century sort of deal with a bunch of switches that result in little "x"s showing up next to the candidate of your choice. It is unclear how one recounts such things, since you really don't have a physical record, just a counter of some sort. A handful of electronic machines was tried out in the primary election -- not near me -- basically because it was mandatory to address disabled voters (of the 500 or so who used them, few were disabled). The switches jammed a bit for some people, and one year I was given a written ballot because it was temporarily down, but one doesn't hear about too many complaints. At least, not in my area. Anyway, their day is likely numbered ... plans are in the works already.
This is likely to be a big year Democrats statewide. The slam dunk is the gubernatorial -- after a few terms of bland good old boy network friendly Republican George Pataki, whose major draw was that he would bring in the death penalty, which later was declared unconstitutional and left to lapse anyway. There also is evidence that Republicans will lose a few key congressional seats as well.* There are a few truly contested seats in NYC, but not too many, and surely not in my district. It is in effect the loyal base that serves as the life's blood for a Democrat governing party.
There is the slate of judicial candidates, for which you pick two or one, as appropriate. Other than party labels, often cross-endorsements, there is no real way for the average voter to determine who to pick except local pol endorsements. Election booklets have statements from other candidates and explanations of ballot measures, but not info on judicial candidates. A recent federal lawsuit found the selection process unconstitutionally controlled by local party bosses. Media coverage doesn't really address these candidates, except for a few notables, or brief mentions in little read local weeklies. Such a veil of ignorance makes the whole matter a joke.
A blast from the past: "The author of the well received bio on Barry Goldwater and the start of the conservative movement inserted a perhaps wistful mention of the Working Families Party in the acknowledgments. He suggests that decades from now, they could be the subject of a similar book." This is a blog comment that I left 3/24/2005. And, I did vote on the WFP line for a few candidates, especially satisfying for the local state senate incumbent with his asinine slogan that he works harder than everyone else. You know, like the local construction workers. Yeah, I know he means among politicians, but that is the image I always get when I pass his posters.
I also found a few state-wide candidates distasteful. For instance, Andrew Cuomo is running for state attorney general, and will win against a qualified but gaffe filled former country prosecutor. Cuomo comes off as a bit of an ass, plus honestly, I rather someone with more experience. Since my vote is not precious, the benefits of being in a safe district (of sorts, in this case), this was the chance to vote symbolically. In this case, Green. The same with state comptroller, whose competition is all token, but recently got into some ethical trouble. I'm not compelled to vote for you, so I did not. Finally, yes, I voted Green statewide for NY senator.
Ideally, we would all have instant runoff voting so more people could do something like this, even when the race is truly close. The other group that feels disenfranchised are those in winner take all districts where the minority parties basically seem meaningless. Some push for proportional voting. It bears noting, however, that it matters to some degree if the local candidate knows a significant minority (let's say over 30%) is against them, knowing there actually is some chance of being defeated next time around. This is especially the case if they care about their constituents, unlike the likes of Lieberman who is annoyed who finds primaries downright offensive ... even worse than bjs.
I made my choice ... hopefully others did so in such a way that a useful result will be forthcoming.
---
* Firedoglake has a troubling post spelling out the misguided and in one fashion blatantly wrong strategy of NARAL to support a few key pro-choice Republicans running for the House, especially in the Northeast. This includes, in a particular ill-advised move, favoring Lieberman as the "only" choice.
[Update: Hey, Lamont did fine ... for the under 30 / 50K demographic, which unfortunately amounts to about 25% of the electorate. See, CNN results. I deleted my fantasy math, though the Republican actually did get around 10% of the vote. Thanks Republicans and turncoat Dems! The Dems won the House, but the asshole won statewide in CT.
Firedoglake took the "it was a good fight" path. Yeah, those activist sorts have to spin everything. Sorry, still pissed me off.]