Independent Candidate Pledge

The two major parties might have a loyalty pledge, but here is our independent candidate pledge:

CANDIDATE PLEDGE

I am running as an independent because I believe we need to do something about the partisanship that dominates every aspect of our political process.

The 42% of Americans who identify themselves as political independents are treated as second class citizens. The structure of our electoral system privileges the parties at the expense of the people.

I will use my campaign to promote democracy reforms that give independents the same rights as party members and break the parties’ tyranny over our democracy.

I hereby pledge to include in my campaign for public office a platform that includes support for the following:

1) Open primaries and nonpartisan elections, which allow unaffiliated voters to participate at every phase of the election process.

2) An inclusive independent movement that welcomes voters of every race and ethnicity, from every community and from all walks of life.

3) Administration of elections that is nonpartisan, rather than bipartisan, giving independents representation in the agencies that carry out this important function.

4) A nonpartisan redistricting process that insures competitive elections and fair treatment of independent voters and candidates.

5) Ballot access reform, open debates and other needed reforms that end discrimination against independents, insurgents and minor party candidates.

Independentvoting.org has been approached by numerous candidates asking for support. As a non-profit, we do not endorse candidates. However, we can post information about candidates who support the independent movement.

We've put together a series of questionnaires that outline issues important to independents.

Use the above link to find out more about the questionnaires.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

CRC Fails its Mission

The CRC made its final votes on what will be on the November 2010 ballot last night. I was unable to attend but watched it streamed on the internet. After not hearing the voters in the open public session, they became one of the worse commissions by doing everything they were asked not to do.

First, they again failed in three votes to listen to the voters and grandfathered the current City Council to Three terms even if the voters return to Two. Then they bundled the Term Limits questions so if I want to keep three terms but want to not allow future councils to make term limit changes for themselves, I can't.

Then using the excuse that there is no room on the new ballot format, they bundled all the other questions, again forcing the voter to a yes or no for all the remaining changes, not allowing the voter to decide on each question.

There is another solution. The voter can use their vote in November to make the two twrm limit stick.

I am so disappointed that if you want to watch last nights meeting, find it yourself.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Party, Movement or Person?

I have been thinking about this topic for awhile. I have always been a person voter. I have always registered since 1965, in one form or other, as an independent. I have been a voter in NY, CA, NJ, and WA. Since retuning to NY in 2000, I decided to take part in the political process and became a member of the Independence Party and now I am in my 4th term as part of the State Committee and local Executive Committee of the party. Since NY is a Fusion state, I am still able to support candidates of different persuasions who share my objectives of structural political reform.

Here in NY, we have a group called CUIP & IndependentVoting.org whose mission is:

A national strategy, communications, and organizing center working to connect and empower the 40% of Americans who identify themselves as independents, to develop a movement of independent voters for progressive post-partisan reform of the American political process. Independents seek to diminish the regressive influence of parties and partisanship by opening up the democratic process. Independents in the CUIP networks are creating new electoral coalitions such as the Black and Independent Alliance, supporting new models of nonpartisan governance and striving for the broadest forms of “bottom-up” participation.

Use the above link to find out more about CUIP.

Here are others with similar thoughs like mine:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg - "Since I've been one of everything in my career at one time or another, I don't think that party matters, What you want are people who are independent in their views. That they don't listen to the party bosses. That they listen to the issues. They're smart enough to analyze it. That they have the experiences that we need in the legislature to know how to address the problems."

Damon Eris, independent blogger - "I am looking forward to the presidential elections of 2040. If, over the next thirty years, the US electorate proves incapable of retiring the majority of sitting legislators and executives, and if, over the same period, the free market proves incapable of retiring the majority of television talking heads we are forced to tolerate, it is a good bet that by 2040 time itself will have retired them for us."

So in the future, are we ready as voters to look at the candidates as indivuals?

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Wedge issues divide politicians from independents

Thought you might be interested in this article by Ed Hornick, CNN. It quotes Jacqueline Salit, president of independentvoting.org, a national strategy and organizing center for independents and the executive editor of The NEO-Independent magazine.

I have worked with Jackie since 2001 and created / maintain the NEO-Independent website as well as other political websites, like CUIP, we created together. With her and many others in the independent movement, I have been elected for my 4th term as a member of the New York Independence Party State Committee representing the 73rd Ad (Eastside of Manhattan) and the Executive Committee of the Manhattan Independence Party.

She said: "I think there's more and more of a steady recognition that these kind of wedge issues and political manipulation, sensationalism and opportunism is exactly what is degrading the American political process and our democracy." and "I think people can't tell what's going on because the political environment is so polluted by partisanship, The parties are trying to change the subject from things they think can inflame voters on and win elections on. How does that help the country? That hurts the country. And that's what independents are deeply concerned about."

Please use the above link to read the entire article.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Independent Streak

I first meet Fred when I returned to NY and registered into the Independence Party in 2001. I am now into my 4th term as the New York State Independence Party State Committee member for the 73rd AD (Eastside of Manhattan) and a member of the Manhattan Executive Committee of the New York City Independence Party Organizations. But just as important is the many plays I saw by Fred as the Artistic Director of the Castillo Theater. Fred is having some health problems and we all wish him well.

This interview is by Chris Bragg of City Hall News.

Fred Newman, the controversial psychotherapist, philosopher, playwright and political activist, has not been in the news as much as his onetime nemesis, Frank MacKay, the chair of the State Independence Party who once tried to boot Newman from the party over his beliefs.

Nonetheless, the city-based faction of the Independence Party has been working hard to make one last push for non-partisan elections, while watching MacKay’s travails from afar. Newman discussed his desire to see Mayor Michael Bloomberg push harder for non-partisan elections, how the state Independence Party has strayed from its roots, and why reporters do not call him very much anymore.

What follows is an edited transcript.

City Hall: The charter revision commission’s staff report recommended that non-partisan elections not go on the ballot this year. What can the Independence Party of New York City do to try and change that?
Fred Newman: Well, the Citizens Union, I understand, did a very, very good report and I was hoping that that would perhaps change the opinion of the commissioners. It certainly would have changed mine. I thought their report was quite good and quite convincing, but it doesn’t seem that the commissioners have been convinced, but I cannot understand why they wouldn’t be.

CH: Is there any formal campaign by the party to push for non-partisan elections?
FN: Well, we’ve been in that campaign mode for a very, very long time, so we have no new tricks that we can do. We were hoping that the commission would respond to that and they don’t seem to have. The answer is that there’s not much we can do.

CH: You brought several hundred people to a hearing in the Bronx who were very vocal in their support of non-partisan elections. How did the party drum up so much interest in the issue?
FN: We received 150,000 votes in the last mayoral race. We have a lot of support in the communities and we can bring our people, but apparently bringing our people doesn’t mean that much to the commission. So I’m not going to be in any way calling out our people from the communities anymore. I don’t think at this point it would make a difference. I am not trying to do it. I don’t know of anything else we can do. I am sure there are some people on the commission who are more sympathetic than others, but I have no way of knowing who they are.

CH: If non-partisan elections were on the ballot, why would it pass this year after getting 30 percent of the vote in 2003?
FN: Things have changed dramatically. Virtually every condition has changed. I think that since 2003 or whatever it was, what’s happened in the country is a major change. There is much more of a mood of being concerned that government is not being responsive, so that’s a very, very big difference. The Citizens Union report, for example, which indicates the citizen’s party has changed, I think also indicates why so many other people have changed. [Citizens Union did not support non-partisan elections in 2003.] The growth of the New York Independence Party is substantial, and the temperament of the country— including New York City, since New York City is, after all, much as we might sometimes deny it, part of the country—is that people are dissatisfied with the way candidates are selected.

CH: Non-partisan elections recently passed California. Does that translate to more support in New York City?
FN: Well, we had many people out in California working on this and they were using the same audience that we are here, so I guess in that sense, yes.

CH: Do you wish the mayor would weigh in a little more in support of non-partisan elections?
FN: His promise, his statement was to assure that he would do what he could do to make sure that it was considered. He created the commission, so he fulfilled that commitment. He didn’t make a commitment to work for it or be outspoken for it, although he has been before on the record. If you asked me subjectively today, would I have wanted him to do more, I suppose it would have been helpful. But I don’t think he has violated any promises.

CH: What do you think the future of the Independence Party of New York City is going to look like once Mayor Bloomberg is not in office anymore?
FN: The New York Independence Party existed before and grew substantially before our connection to Mayor Bloomberg and it will do so after he is off the political scene. There will be new people coming in and there will be new issues coming up and we’ll continue to participate. I think it will surely continue to be a political reform party.

CH: What’s your take on what’s going on with the State Independence Party? Some of the local chairs are upset that their endorsement decisions were overruled.
FN: It’s hard for me to say since I was involved with the state committee a long time ago and it was mostly people from New York City. It’s a democracy disaster, but no one has bothered looking into it. I have no real opinions on what’s going on there, but I know that it’s a very important development that the party seems to be a radical party in terms of its way of operating and functioning, and [Frank] MacKay made his decisions, I think, heavily under the influence of the Democratic Party.

CH: Do you see the State Independence Party as leaving its ideological roots as some suggest?
FN: When I was involved with the party, the local organizations used to make those decisions, essentially, the state chair and the state organization didn’t do it all. The local organizations made those decisions and those were the rules of the party, and MacKay has changed all that, that’s no longer true. The key to the party is internal democracy, but he’s turned it into a regular third party in New York State. I don’t think he is doing anything worse than any other third parties in the history of the state. It was very important to me that at the beginning we made an effort to change that, and that was completely abandoned by MacKay.

CH: There have also been some issues that have arisen regarding MacKay’s outside interests and his wife’s computer company. Does that surprise you?
FN: It doesn’t surprise me because that’s what happens, it seems to me, in all parties, major or minor, when they have no real concern with internal democracy—that is the kind of thing that happens. Why would it surprise me? I’m 75 years old.

CH: Pedro Espada is an old ally of yours. Will you help him in his primary?
FN: Not that I know of, I don’t think so. He hasn’t asked us, and it’s a Democratic primary.

CH: What else are you up to these days?
FN: I do everything I did when I was 35, 45, except I do it much more slowly. I do some teaching, some writing. I listen to a lot of music, I read the papers and I participate in New York City political life.

CH: Anything else you’d like to add?
FN: That’s a hard question for me to answer. I like to discuss many, many things, but I’ve received fewer and fewer requests for my opinions on these things over the years. People see me as too radical, I guess. I’ve been kind of checked out on the public debate on these kinds of questions. So, I appreciate that you’re asking me for my opinion.

Use the above link to find out more about my friend Fred.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NYC Charter Revision Commission Last Meeting

The New York City Charter Revision Commission will hold its last scheduled public hearing and meeting on Monday, August 23, 2010 at 6:00pm. It will take place at:

Baruch College, Newman Vertical Campus Conference Center
55 Lexington Avenue (enter at 24th Street & Lexington Ave)
14th Floor, Room 14-220
MANHATTAN

At that meeting, the Commission will receive public input on its work to date, and the Commission will vote on any remaining issues before it, including the adoption of a Final Report and ballot questions. The hearing is open to the public and will be streamed live via webcast through the Commission's website. Use the above link for the website.

I was interested in the following questions to be on the ballot:

Term Limits
Under existing charter provisions, as amended by a local law enacted by the Council in, 2008, City Council members and other elected City officials may currently serve up to three consecutive four year terms. Previously, a law enacted by voter initiative in 1993 established a limit of two four year terms for elected officials. In order to allow the electorate to choose between a two-term and a three-term limit, the Commission determined to place a proposal on the ballot to reduce the current limit of three consecutive terms for elected City officials to two consecutive full terms. Additionally, the proposal would prohibit the City Council from altering the term limit of incumbent elected officials; and provide that the proposed changes to two terms would apply to officials first elected to office after November 5, 2013.

Reducing Signature Requirements for Petitions
Voter turnout in City elections is dramatically low with only 26% of registered New Yorkers having voted in the last mayoral election. While the Commission explored a number of provisions designed to increase voter turnout, most of these would require a change in state law or the State Constitution. Some measures within the City’s jurisdiction to enact can apply only to city elections. Since virtually all city elections occur at the same time and place as state elections, the differing voting requirements present the potential for massive voter confusion. The Commission has, however, proposed a measure permitted under state law to enable candidates for City elections to get onto the ballot with a reduced number of petition signatures. The proposal reduces from 7,500 to 3,750 the number of signatures necessary to gain access to a party primary for the Mayor, Comptroller, and Public Advocate; reduces from 4,000 to 2,000 the number of signatures necessary to gain access to a party primary for Borough Presidents; and reduces from 900 to 450 the number of signatures necessary for Council members to gain access to a party primary, or to 2,700 for access to the general election ballot for independent candidates.

Use the above link to read the entire proposal with all the ballot questions.

I am disappointed that nonpartisan elections or Top Two did not make the 2010 ballot. But the fight will continue.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

The Mosque Issue

Like most people, the mosque issue has driven my wife to put on her headphones while she works, restoring historical photos and painting. I feel the laws are clear but its placement needs to be considered. But there is more to the story.

Developers of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero own only half the site where they want to construct the $100 million building. One of the two buildings on Park Place is owned by Con Edison, even though Soho Properties told officials and the public that it owns the entire parcel. Any potential sale by ConEd faces a review by the state Public Service Commission. The ConEd-owned part of the buiding is being appraised for a possible sale. The developers paid $4.8m for half of the building and paid $700,000 for a long term lease from ConEd.

And finally, the group has been having a tough time in their donation efforts to reach the cost of the project. So after all the back and forth, it could be a very long time for this project to start and be completed, if at all.

What do you think?

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Bloombeg in 2012?

Michael R. Bloomberg paid $45 million for a crisp, elegant town house at Madison Avenue and 78th Street to be the headquarters for the newly created Bloomberg Family Foundation. Mr. Bloomberg has purchased a second building for $41 million adjacent to the $45 million building on the Upper East Side to house the new foundation. His office says the buildings will undergo renovations and be connected internally.

There has been a lot of recent talk about New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg thinking about a run for President in 2012, if the conditions are right.

Mr. Bloomberg created a foundation in 2006, vowing to give away most, if not all, of his wealth — estimated at $16 billion at the time. There is a heavy political cast to the foundation board Mr. Bloomberg announced. Among those appointed are Henry M. Paulson Jr., former Treasury secretary; Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida; Manny Diaz, former mayor of Miami; Cory A. Booker, mayor of Newark; and Sam Nunn, former senator from Georgia.

Since 2006, many political operatives have taken up offices at the foundation. A top NY political consultant on Team Bloomberg has said “Bloomberg wants to run.” Of course under normal circumstances an independent candidacy wouldn’t have much of a chance at all, but these are not normal times, and you already know the rest of the sentence, Bloomberg is not a normal politician.

I always thought it would be difficult for an independent candidate to get into the White House directly. We would need more independents in Congress first to make this happen.

What do you think?

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Voter anger a media creation?

From a POLITICO article by SEUNG MIN KIM, use the above link to read the entire article, "Political pundits and Democratic politicians scoffed Wednesday at the notion of an anti-incumbent wave hitting campaigns this midterm season, blaming the media for spreading the story line that they insist is not real."

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, pointed out that factoring for current primaries' incumbent losses translated into a 98.3 percent win rate for incumbents so far in 2010. These statistics are about "normal on a 40-year average,” Sabato said, arguing that the idea of an anti-incumbency wave is a “press-manufactured phenomenon.”

If you read the voters comments for these types of articles, they want to "Throw Out the Bums". At last nights New York City Charter Revision Commission, it was discussed that even though the voters were mad about the change in term limits by the mayor and city council, most were reelected.

But this misses the point. You have to give the voters better choices to make a change. This was one of our major reasons for nonpartisan elections or Top Too. Not only would it turn out more voters but give more people the opportunity to run.

The other reason for the primary results is the growth of groups like the Tea Party. These types of far left and right groups is splitting the anti-incumbent and anti-establishment voters.

What do you think is the reason incumbents are still winning?

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NYC Charter Revision Commission 8/11/2010

Thanks to The Hankster for the images.

I attended this meeting tonight and and you can view the meeting using the above link.
 

Before it started the Chairman, Matthew Goldstein, discussed the problem of the new optical scan voting system's ballot. At issue are factors like the font size that will be used and whether there is a way to reasonably ensure that voters will flip over the ballot page for the new optical scanners if it is necessary to put the questions put forward by the Charter Revision Commission on the reverse side. The Commission would need to ask the Board of Elections to indicate on the front of the ballot with language like "Remember To Check Both Sides Of The Ballot".

As the beginning of all meetings, the chairman stated his four principals the commission used in its decision process:

1. The issue must have time to study.
2. The issue must have time to educate the voters.
3. The issue must not doom but create a better functioning government.
4. The issue has a likelihood of passing and not doomed to failure. ( I strongly disagree with this, it is the voters who decide).

There will be a final report vote on August 23, 2010. The report will do the following:

1. Show the history of the 2010 commission.
2. Justification of the questions selected for the 2010 ballot.
3. A road map for future commissions of issues needing more review.

The Ballot Questions approved for the November 2010 General Election.

Some questions passed unanimously and others took much debate.

1. Term Limits
- Should we return to two terms for Mayor, Comptroller, Public Advocate, Borough Presidents, and the City Council (if no, it would stay at three terms).
- Prohibit the City Council changing term limits for themselves, only for future elected council members.
- If two terms passed, current incumbents would still be able to serve their full three terms (this took four votes).

2. Campaign Disclosure
- Individuals making over $1,000 expenditures.
- Organizations making over $5,000 expenditures.
- Must disclosure to the Campaign Finance Board and in campaign literature.

3. Petition Signatures
- Reduce the number of required petition signatures to get on the ballot by 50%. The exact numbers will be in the final report.

4. Voter Assistance Commission
- Merge the current Voter Assistance Commission with the Campaign Finance Board as the Voter Assistance Advisory Board.

5. Ethics
- Make Ethics training mandatory for all officials.
- Increase the integrity violation from $10,000 to $25,000 and loss of any gain realised from violation.

6. Administration Tribunals
- After evaluation and public review, consolidate of the many, around 12, Administration Justice Tribunals. This change would allow the standardization of procedures, use of judges, and putting the tribunals in each of the five boroughs under The Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH).

7. Reporting Requirements
- Create a commission to evaluate the current government reporting requirements to determine what is needed and which reports can be removed.

8. Fair Share
- Create a commission to determine the placement of waste management by public, state, and federal entities fairly across all communities.

I am disappointed that nonpartisan elections or Top Two did not make the 2010 ballot. But the fight will continue.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Pre NYC Charter Revision Commision Meeting

Thanks to The Hankster for the videos.

Yesterday Mayor Bloomberg had decided not to ask the commission to put nonpartisan elections or Top Two on the 2010 ballot. The meeting vote on what will be on the ballot is tonight and I will attend and report what was decided.

Here is Bloomberg at our fundraiser this year.


We started to hear about it early with comments like:

"Mayor Michael Bloomberg is backing away from his fight to eliminate political primaries. NY1 has learned the mayor will not call on the City Charter Revision Commission to put the issue before voters this fall. One source says a huge blow to the mayor's efforts came over the weekend when the Reverend Al Sharpton spoke out in defense of political primaries."

"The mayor's operatives had hoped to convince a majority of the 15-member Charter Revision Commission to back the idea at its Wednesday meeting, after weeks of quietly leaning on members for their support. But the lack of enthusiasm from newspaper editorial boards, and Rev. Al Sharpton's weekend decision to oppose it, led Bloomberg to decide today not to pursue the idea again, sources said. While Bloomberg appointed the commission's members, he did not press them to support his idea, and Chairman Matthew Goldstein said he did not want the commission to put any questions on the ballot unless voters were likely to approve them."

Community leaders, including Dr. Lenora Fulani, held a press conference on the steps of City Hall Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 10:00 am, to respond to statements by Democratic Party elected officials and Rev. Al Sharpton that partisan elections better serve the interests of minority voters, a shift by Sharpton who had previously stated that nonpartisan elections deserved serious consideration. A majority of New York City's 751,442 unaffiliated voters, who would be enfranchised under a nonpartisan system, are people of color—20% are African American, 24%Latino, and 11% Asian.


NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us