Had yet another annoying message on my machine reminding me to vote and suggesting whom to choose ... but it was too late to count and was for the other guy anyway. Yes, another NY Primary Day at the local schoolhouse, where little future voters learn how to be good citizens, or something. The nostalgic should hold on to these memories ... in a few polling places, new voting machines are already being tested. The days of the 19th Century looking lever voting machines used over here should be winding down, especially since we already are behind schedule per HAVA requirements. I can imagine if the '00 election went down to recounts of these things.
[But, bottom line, NYC -- a rather big place with plenty of minorities (white males, for instance) -- has not had loads of election problems over the years. I'm sure it is not perfect (surely for the handicapped, who probably use written ballots in certain cases) but the lack of horror stories -- unlike let's say urban Ohio -- is rather notable. Once there was a problem with a machine -- my precinct has about five -- and I was just given a provisional ballot, the sort of thing that would have been quite useful in various places in '00.
As to the overall idea of the primary, including the fear it will be dominated by partisans on the edges, well that is a bit less an issue in a city dominated by one party. And, simply put, there should be an election for party bearer. Other non-first person past the post sort of deals might be nice and all, but party primaries still seem like a good idea overall.]
NYC remains a Democratic realm though we have a Republican mayor (by convenience ... shifting for the '01 campaign to winnow out the competition -- his challenger in that general election is among those running for attorney general today). This is why those in my area that are Republican have one thing to vote for -- what sacrificial lamb between two lame choices should they choose to run against Clinton in November? As I have noted, Clinton (no Lieberman -- her middle of the road stances also mean she does not act against party interests) does have a protest candidate running against her, Jonathan Tasini, who is no Lamont (who supports Clinton). Still, I voted for him, since his more progressive stands are copasetic. Clinton's failure to debate him is far from surprising, one really can't blame her, but I sorta do.
The Republicans actually have a credible candidate (with county prosecutorial experience) for attorney general who has a shot at winning (some might split tickets, the governor's race almost a lock for Eliot Spitzer); especially since both likely Democratic choices are sorta jerks (Mark Green or Andrew Cuomo) whose records for such a statewide office is a bit questionable. OTOH, the woman (no primary competition) chosen has a husband who has caused her Geraldine Ferraroesque problems and she embarrassed herself in her aborted plan to run against Clinton (unlike Katherine Harris, Pirro knew what was good for her, and took the advice of others to aim lower). Other localities, of course, might have had some local offices with Republican primaries. But, statewide, this is their shot.
That lock for governor also had a challenger -- Tom Suozzi, a reform minded gadfly sort who picked a weird time to run. The last time, the Dems had a weak candidate (Carl McCall, who is black, and Cuomo caused problems by challenging him early on), but I guess he wasn't ready to run back then. Spitzer was called the "sheriff of Wall St" by a local reporter, and making statements criticizing the fact he is not as clean as he could be (special interest connections) isn't really getting much traction. This led to a local story spelling out how the guy has a sense of humor on his website, including links to him with cows. I'm sympathetic to these sorts of people -- more power to them in trying to do something for the community and wanting to take part in public service. Still, one assumes there are better ways to do this than quixotic campaigns against people who really don't need to be kept honest that much. But, I guess those who are "locks" do need such balance -- part of why it annoys that Clinton gets away not debating. These aren't sinecures.
The final office that I voted for today was state assembly -- a local political family representative filled the seat just last term, Naomi Rivera. Her opposite number in the state senate, he of "works harder" fame (what a lame campaign slogan), is running unopposed. [No need to work hard now ... just continue posting those signs.] The only real thing of note as to the statewide legislative offices is that there are actually lawn signs (not too popular) for the Republican candidate. One "lawn" (don't really have front lawns around here actually) had three of them -- not that he is likely to win or anything. NR's competition is also token. NR's big claim to fame appears to be promotions of local events as shown by signs noting she sponsors such events. This gives her a presence, reminding people just who she is.
Given our local federal congressman is not generally seen (at least by me) in these parts or mentioned in the local papers, this is a good thing. Key to political success is name recognition ... next to incumbency (judges up for recall elections have about equal shot of being voted out as most legislators), this is essential. As to the voting experience, smooth as usual -- actually saw an election worker under forty. And, the races had a bit of a point -- the attorney general race is competitive (though Cuomo appears to have a sizable lead), Tasini is a good message candidate, and hey, if you are a Republican, you should have the best sacrificial lamb as you can. After all, she is going to be in office for six more years, right? One hopes so.
Hey, being a citizen isn't always a grand experience. Still worthwhile, even the little things.