This year’s primary election, with such a low turnout -– fewer than 500,000 voters out of some 2.6 million registered Democrats showed up at the polls -- should have been an easy one to handle. There were few long lines and no widespread reports of machine malfunctions.

But then things turned weird.

It was weird enough that Democratic mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer, who needed 40 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff, got stuck at 39.949 percent when the preliminary tally was finished by midnight. He needed just 252 more votes. Election officials informed the public that an official count might take until the following week.

Weirder still was what happened the next day, after second-place finisher Anthony Weiner conceded the nomination to Ferrer. If many saw this as a statesmanlike gesture, the Board of Elections saw it as irrelevant. If Ferrer didn’t get his 40 percent when the votes were officially counted, election officials said, he was going to face the strange prospect of a runoff against a rival who has publicly thrown his support behind him. More than 6,000 voting machines would have to be sent back to the more than 1,400 polling places, and poll workers rehired, to run a special election on September 27 to which nobody would show up, at a cost election officials put at about $10 million. It was, they said, the law.

Is this kind of weirdness peculiar to New York? Does it indicate some larger failure? Is there a better way to do things?

Runoffs -- Well-Intentioned, But Sometimes Disastrous

A New York State law (in pdf format) requires that New York City (and only New York City) hold a runoff election in citywide races if no candidate receives 40 percent of the votes cast in the primary. Runoffs are intended to bring extra legitimacy to a candidate, and are generally supported by good government groups.

New York City’s runoffs, however, have also resulted in divisive head-to-head campaigns that have left the winner damaged in the general election. This was demonstrated in 2001 when Mark Green defeated Ferrer in the Democratic runoff, then lost to Bloomberg in the general election.

Fewer people remember a similar debacle caused by the threat of a runoff four years earlier. As the Times recounted, Ruth Messenger had not reached the magic 40 percent until the official count was finished eight days after the primary. The second-place finisher, the Reverend Al Sharpton, sued. Though unsuccessful, the bad feelings did not help Messenger in her long-shot bid against Rudolph Giuliani.

A runoff seems particularly unappealing this year, since the Board of Elections will spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money to hold a completely meaningless election in which neither candidate expects -– or even wants -– voter turnout, and where the winner is predetermined.

An Alternative -- Instant Runoff Voting

Other jurisdictions have conducted runoffs while managing to avoid these shortcomings through a system called Instant Runoff Voting. In this system, the voters rank their preferences when they vote in the primaries. If no clear majority is achieved on first-choice votes, the candidate with the minimum amount of votes is eliminated, with his or her votes reallocated to the voters’ second choice. If there is still no victor, election officials go through the count again with voters’ third choices, and so on, until a candidate reaches the threshold for victory.

Instant Runoff Voting is more common internationally than it is in the United States, but other places around the country are adopting the system, including San Francisco. An organization called Fair Vote has launched a campaign it calls "IRV America" (IRV for Instant Runoff Voting). On its Web site it points out that the International Olympic Committee chose London as the host city for the 2012 Games of the XXX Olympiad "after four rounds of voting using a method similar to IRV," and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has used the system as well.

Proponents recommend this system for New York City, saying that it not only lowers the cost of citywide races, but also that it has reduced negative campaign tactics. "Instant runoffs encourage candidates to run high-minded races, because they need to simultaneously court voters for their second- and third-choice votes," Mark Green wrote in an article for the Daily News. "So instead of seeking a plurality by only working their respective racial, religious or community niches, candidates have to seek votes outside their own particular constituency. That avoids the scenario of a winner who gets elected by a sliver of voters only because the majority was divided among more generally favored candidates."

Critics of the system say it’s too complicated, and in effect disenfranchises those (including some immigrants) who have trouble understanding it.

Although a bill (A3510) has been proposed in the state legislature to bring instant runoffs to New York, it has yet to gain support and is currently sitting in committee.

The Recounts

Given the quandary of the mayoral runoff, few paid attention to the problems in other races. The preliminary tallies in two races made them too close to call by the day after primary day: Diana Johnson led Margarita LĂłpez Torres in the Democratic nomination for Surrogate’s Court by 80 votes. The campaign for the city council nomination in District 8 in East Harlem was even narrower -- front-runner Melissa Mark-Viverito led second-place finisher Felipe Luciano by a mere 16 votes.

A recount for the Surrogate’s Court race was announced less than twenty-four hours after the polls had closed.

A recount is not necessarily a sign of failure. But it often is. In 2000, while the nation waited to find out the outcome of the presidential election, New Yorkers had to wait even longer for paper ballots to be counted to determine the winner of the state senate race in District 26 on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. (Republican incumbent Roy Goodman beat Democratic challenger Liz Krueger). The vote tally was held up by reports of broken down machines and incompetent poll workers. Many advocates came down hard on the Board of Elections for failing to prepare adequately for Election Day.

Improvements have been made; more could be made. Both are the case in the operation of the poll worker program. As the city phases out its old machines in the next two years, having well-trained poll workers becomes all the more important to avoid malfunction and delay in the election system.

But delay is not always a bad thing. It is of course heretic to say this in a city where people would quickly fall into despair if forced to use a rotary phone. But there are times when the electoral system sacrifices speed for increased safeguards against voter disenfranchisement.

“We want to ensure that we give voters of New York real numbers,” said John Ravitz, executive director of the Board of Elections, before this year’s primary.

The morning after Election Day the Board of Elections begins approving and counting all the paper ballots it has received. These include ”affidavit ballots” filed by voters whose names did not appear on the voter rolls, and so were not permitted to vote on the machine; absentee ballots mailed by those who couldn’t make it to the polls; and emergency ballots that allowed voters to cast a vote when broken or missing machines – or other such circumstances – prevented them from voting.

These are all important ways to make sure that every vote counts. They take time. The law requires that absentee ballots continue to be counted until the Tuesday after the election. In the Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court race, supporters of candidate Margarita Lopez-Torres say that most absentee ballots come from the so-called brownstone belt, where they feel Lopez-Torres has a large enough advantage to swing the vote her way.

Doug Israel is the public policy director of Citizens Union Foundation (publishers of Gotham Gazette), where Amy Ngai is program associate. 

The one issue that candidates for public office consider more important than any other is the one they are least eager to talk about – the process of getting elected to office.

It is the issue that the press has focused on in the 2005 mayoral race. The first question in the first official debate among the Democratic candidates started this way: “Anyone who has followed the primary race so far may think that the defining moments have been the fiascos. Speaker Miller took heat over the million-and-a-half dollars in recent public mailings; Congressman Weiner faces questions over use of party resources; Mrs. Fields had problems with flyers and misplaced e-mails; and you, Mr. Ferrer, took a lot of heat for statements on the Diallo case....” On the Republican side, the focus has been on Bloomberg’s billions.

However trivial some of these may seem, there are also substantive issues about elections that will last far beyond this particular campaign season. In the next several years, elected officials will have to weigh in on major changes both in the way candidates run and voters vote.

New Voting Machines – Changing The Way New Yorkers Vote

After years of legislative gridlock, on the penultimate day of the 2005 session, the New York State legislature finally agreed on legislation to implement the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA). As part of this measure, the city will be purchasing brand new voting machines, possibly as early as 2006, and finally ridding itself of the old lever systems which we’ve all come to know, if not love.

It is now up to the city government to select the machines that voters will use and fund a portion of the cost. The federal government allocation of $3,192 per precinct will not cover the actual cost of replacing all lever machines, and of training a slew of new poll workers to teach voters how to use these machines. While much of the heavy lifting on this will fall to the long-under-funded Board of Elections, the mayor and City Council will have to allocate the funds in the budget to make sure that the transition runs smoothly.

Campaign Financing – Reducing the Role of Money in Politics

A key ingredient in being elected to public office is raising funds to be able to “get your message out.” In some very rare instances candidates will fund their own campaigns, as is presently the case with Michael Bloomberg. However, most often candidates must approach donors, hold fundraisers and try to out-compete one another financially to get elected. This even extends to candidates for judicial positions.

In order to reduce the role that money plays in the process, the city’s campaign finance program gives candidates “matching funds” if they agree to spending caps and contribution limits. In exchange for abiding by these caps and limits, the city’s campaign finance program gives candidates $4 for every $1 they raise in donations less than $250. That quadruples the impact of each small donor and allows candidates with smaller donations to compete with those that get big checks. It also theoretically reduces the overall spending and time spent fundraising. The city has even instituted a bonus matching program of $6 for $1 when candidates face opponents who do not participate in the program and who spend above the spending cap that is placed on program participants.

For better or for worse, every year, our local officials tweak the program. Key changes that may be enacted in the coming year include:

• Prohibiting contributions from donors that are “doing business” with the city. The city is now setting up an extensive database of those that have contracts with the city, whether it is for installing vending machines in the schools, or disposing of the city’s trash, in order to ensure greater disclosure. Regulating their contributions may be the next step.
• Prohibiting the transfer of funds a candidate raises in a previous election cycle, for one office, to a candidate committee for another office. Candidates often stock pile money, or “war chests” to deter other candidates from joining the race. Prohibiting the transfer of funds raised for other offices will help level the playing field for those that have not been raising funds for years.
• Capping the amount of money that the city will give to candidates under the matching provision if a candidate is not facing a serious challenger. The campaign finance program is perceived by many as too lenient in its dispersal of funds and too easily abused by candidates that face very minimal competition. Enforcing a stringent threshold of money raised by a challenger in order for candidates to receive the full allotment of matching funds can save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars each election cycle.

Term Limits

In the fall of 1993, New York City voters approved term limits for the city’s elected officials by a solid margin of 59 to 41 percent. Since 2001, when the inaugural class of city officials were term limited out, public servants have been limited to serve for two consecutive four-year periods. The public has come to accept term limits.

It is less certain how popular term limits are among those public officials who now hold office because of it. There is talk in the City Council of a bill that Councilmember Gale Brewer is planning to introduce after the election that will extend the two-term limit to three. Others are talking of trying to rescind the measure all together. Those who oppose term limits will tell you that voters can get rid of politicians by voting them out of office. They will also argue that when they leave office they take their years of experience with them, ultimately hurting the city and putting much more power in the hands of permanent government and staffers. But the voters have spoken in two referenda. It may provoke a backlash to do the opposite of what the voters wish.

Doug Israel is the public policy director of Citizens Union Foundation (publishers of Gotham Gazette), where Amy Ngai is program associate. 

Last Minute Voter's Guide: • Who Is On the Ballot? • Who Is Running in My District? • What Is At Stake? • Which Races Are Competitive? • Where Do I Vote? • Problems At the Polls? • How Do I Find Out Who Won? related links: • Complete Election Coverage • Primary Election Results • Find Your Polling Place related articles: • City Council Campaign 2003 • Ballot Bumping in New York • History of NY Election Law

Since then, Ryneski has been trying to pay attention to his local City Council race - noting the campaign posters on street corners, reading the newspapers, and saving the Board of Election's postcard with the location of his polling place.

Still he admits that when it comes to issues - things like taxes, education, or housing - he has trouble telling the Democratic candidates apart. "I couldn't really tell if there is a difference between the three candidates [in Harlem]," said Ryneski.

Even for New York's most attentive voters, this year's City Council campaign has been difficult to follow.

There are no races for higher office to generate media attention and half of the 51 incumbent council members have no primary opponent. Even in the competitive races many incumbents have kept a low profile, skipping debates and public forums.

Still, the Primary Election on Tuesday - which will effectively decide 95 percent of City Council races given the overwhelmingly Democratic voters in New York - will have repercussions for the future of the city.

The 51 members of the City Council approve the city's budget and are responsible for tax increases and budget cuts. The council passes the laws governing the city. And council members make decisions that affect their individual neighborhoods - where housing is built, which community organizations are funded, and if a classroom gets computers.

For those voters looking for some help on Primary Day, we offer the following guide:

• Who Is On the Ballot?
• Who Is Running in My District?
• What Is At Stake?
• Which Races Are Competitive?
• Where Do I Vote?
• What If I Encounter Problems At the Polls?
• How Do I Find Out Who Won?

Who Is On The Ballot?

City Council: All 51 City Council members must run for reelection this year, but there are only 24 primary races on September 9. In the remaining districts, the incumbent is facing no challengers or all of the challengers were already knocked off the ballot.

In New York, which has some of the most complicated election laws in the nation, knocking your opponent off the ballot is a routine aspect of the political game. Dozens of candidates for City Council were eliminated on technicalities. And many more potential challengers did not even bother running, knowing that they would face huge legal bills and hours in court defending their right to run. (Read Ballot Bumping in New York for more these laws and why candidates were kicked off.)

All of the City Council primary races are for the Democratic party nomination, with the exception of district 5 on the Upper East Side which has a Republican primary.

Judicial Races: There are also a handful of judicial primary races for Civil Court: one in Manhattan, three in Brooklyn, and two in the Bronx. (See a list of candidates running for Civil Court Judge)

No Ballot Questions: There will NOT be any ballot questions on Primary Day, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Charter Commission will put several questions on the November 4 ballot, including one that would eliminate party primaries. In addition to nonpartisan elections, the commission will also put two other questions on the ballot dealing with the way the city buys goods and services, and the operations of city government. (For more information on nonpartisan elections, read It Is Time For Non-Partisan Elections In NYC by Frank J. Macchiarola and Instead of Non-Partisan Elections, Consider Some Real Reforms by Mark Green.)

Who Is Runnng In My District?

On Primary Day, some voters will find they live in a different City Council district than the last time they went to the polls.

Since the last local election in 2001, the City Council district lines were redrawn to reflect new census data, and so some voters have new representatives. Those who live on the edge of a district or in a neighborhood that has experienced a large change in ethnic make-up are most likely to see a change. (Read more about the City Council redistricting and the controversy it generated.)

The best way to find your district is to:

1. Go to Gotham Gazette's Campaign 2003 page.
2. Type in your address.
3. Click "Find It!"
4. Click on the Campaign Button in the top right hand column.

On the district page, you will find a list of candidates running, information about their campaign contributions, candidate biographies, and an archive of news stories from the campaign trail.

There is also information on how each council member voted on the dozen most divisive votes of the last two years - like the 18.5 percent property tax increase, the law that banned smoking in bars and restaurants, and a resolution urging the U.S. not to go to war with Iraq.

What Is At Stake?

While many New Yorkers may not be able to name their City Council member, most have something to say about issues like taxes, trash pick-ups, firehouse closures, or the school system, for which council members are responsible.

One of the City Council's primary responsibilities is approving the city's $44 billion budget. In the last two years, the City Council has approved increases to the property tax, sales tax, and income tax for the wealthiest New Yorkers. Just a few months ago, the council voted on a budget that cut 4,000 city workers and closed six firehouses. Next year, the city is expected to have a $2 billion deficit, which means that more cuts may be needed.

The council is responsible for passing laws that govern the city. This fall, the council is scheduled to consider legislation:

- Requiring gun owners to buy liability insurance

- Ensuring that the city notify residents if a homeless shelter will be built in the neighborhood

- Mandating weekly trash pick-ups

- Requiring landlords to clean up lead dust in apartments.

Council members also fight for funding for local community groups, little league teams, library improvements, and classroom computers.

Which Races Are Competitive?

The most watched race this year has been the campaign to fill the vacant seat of slain City Councilmember James Davis, who was shot in City Hall in July. Davis's brother, Geoffrey Davis, has been selected as the only Democratic nominee and there will be no primary for district 35. Four candidates will face off in the November general election.

But there are some primary races to watch.

In the north Bronx in district 12, Shirley Saunders, who lost to Larry Seabrook by just 103 votes in 2001, is running again and challenging the record of the incumbent. "I think people have seen Larry Seabrook more over the last three months [campaigning] than they have in all of sixteen years," said Saunders.

In district 18 Soundview and Parkchester, incumbent Councilmember Pedro Espada Jr. has dropped out of the race and handed his seat to his son Pedro G. Espada. He is facing a new challenger, Annabel Palma, who is backed by the Bronx Democratic Party.

In district 34 in Bushwick, Brooklyn, affordable housing has emerged as the number one issue in an area where the waterfront is being developed and trendy neighborhoods have pushed out long time residents. Incumbent City Councilmember Diana Reyna is facing a strong challenge from Juan Martinez, a former community school president.

In district 45, a nondescript building in East Flatbush could determine the political future of City Councilmember Kendall Stewart. He owns the building and blamed recent violations on his tenants. His challengers say he is not serving the community. "He is a slumlord," said one of his opponents.

For more races, read A Dozen Races To Watch.

Where Do I Vote?

Registered voters should have received a yellow post card in the mail with the address of their polling place. If you did not, call the Board of Elections at 1-866-VOTE NYC, try the board's poll site locator web site, or e-mail them at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with your complete address, and you should receive an email instructing you where to vote.

Polls open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 9:00 p.m. Absentee ballots must be hand-delivered to the Board of Elections by 9:00 p.m.

What If I Encounter Problems At The Polls?

If you have problems at your polling site on Election Day, call the New York Public Interest Research Group Voter Help Line 212-822-0282 to register your complaint.

On their website, the New York Public Research Interest Group also has a instructions for how to work the voting machine and a Voter's Bill of Rights, which answers basic questions like "Can I bring someone with me to help vote?" and "Can I still vote if the machine breaks?" (The answer to both questions is "yes.")

How Do I Find Out Who Won?

Television stations and newspapers will cover the City Council races, but some results - like judicial races - are more difficult to find.

Visit Gotham Gazette's Results Page on election night and the following days. Remember, a close race can take days or weeks to decide.

Tammany Hall's William "Boss" Tweed, as portrayed by 19th century political cartoonist Thomas Nast

From Royal Rule to Public Finance

1665 - First Mayor
Governor Richard Nicolls appoints Thomas Willett the first "mayor of New York." For the next 156 years, the mayor will be appointed and have limited power.

1686 - Common Council
Governor Thomas Dongan divides New York City into six wards and creates a Common Council with an alderman and assistant alderman elected from each ward.

1820s - Property Qualifications Removed
In New York State, the right to vote is extended to all white males, regardless of whether they own or rent property.

1821 - Choosing a Mayor
The Common Council, which includes elected members, gains the authority to choose the mayor who will sit in City Hall. Previously, the state government appointed the mayor.

1834 - First Elected Mayor
An amendment to the state constitution provides for the direct popular election of the mayor. Cornelius W. Lawrence, a Democrat, is elected.

1846 - Voting Rights Rejected
New York voters reject a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would guarantee free blacks the same voting rights as whites.

1861 - Tammany Hall Emerges
Tammany Hall, which evolved from an organization of craftsmen into a Democratic political machine, gains control of Democratic Party nominations in the state and city.

1870 - Voting Rights
The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified, giving blacks throughout the United States the same voting rights as whites.

1880 - Standard Ballot
In response to an era of political scandals, New York begins requiring the so-called "Australian ballot," a uniform ballot listing all candidates. To get on it, an office seeker would have to be nominated by a political party or submit nominating petitions, laying the groundwork for a system that persists to this day.

1890 - Primary Election
Because of perceived abuses in the way political parties select candidates, the New York State Legislature enacts a law that, for the first time, requires government to manage and pay for elections to select party officials who would then choose the party's candidates.

1892 - Voting Machine
The first voting machine, invented by Thomas Edison, is used in Lockport, New York in 1892. By the early 1920s, voting machines would be used for all general elections in New York City.

1894 - Bipartisan Control
The state establishes a system, in effect to this day, under which all election positions, from Board of Elections officials to poll watchers, must be divided equally between the two major parties.

Three suffragists casting votes in New York City around 1918.

1898 - Greater New York Formed
A new City Charter merges Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island into greater New York. All five boroughs now elect the mayor.

1915 - Suffragists Defeated
A referendum giving women the vote is defeated by city and state voters.

1920 - Suffragists Victorious
The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is signed into law, guaranteeing women throughout the United States the right to vote.

1965 - Opening the Polls
Congress passes the federal Voting Rights Act to ensure that no person is denied the right to vote on account of race or color.

1967 - A Black District
A suit brought under the Voting Rights Act leads to the creation of a majority black congressional district in Brooklyn. Previously, black voters had been divided among several predominantly white districts. In 1968, voters in the district elect Shirley Chisholm as the first black woman ever in the U.S. House of Representatives. Since then, congressional, state legislative and City Council districts have been drawn so as to ensure minority representation.

1969 - School Elections
Non-citizens who have children in public schools are given the right to vote in elections for members of community school boards.

1970 - Voting Rights in New York
The federal government determines that Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx must be covered under the federal Voting Rights Act because of low voter registration levels. As a result, the federal government has to approve any changes in voting practices in these boroughs, including redistricting. This would mean that any switch to nonpartisan elections would require clearance by the U.S. Justice Department.

1971 - Younger Voters
The 26th Amendment lowers the voting age in New York from 21 to 18.

1975 - Multilingual Ballots and Election Information
Amendments to the Voting Rights Act require that election information be provided in Spanish as well as English in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Manhattan.

1988 - Ethical Finance
The Campaign Finance Board is formed as part of a response to corruption in city agencies. Its goal is to limit the influence of private funds in city politics. Candidates participating in the program can receive public money for their election campaigns. In return, they must agree to a spending limit and full disclosure of their campaign finances.

1989 - End of Board of Estimate
The U.S. Supreme Court abolishes the Board of Estimate, which gave each borough president an equal vote. The court rules that this violates the principle of one person-one vote because the boroughs vary so much in population. A new charter eliminates the board and distributes the board's powers between the mayor and an expanded City Council. 1992 - Chinese Ballots
The city begins providing voting information in Chinese, and Spanish is added to Queens ballots.

1993 - Term Limits
City voters approve a ballot measure, backed by millionaire Ronald Lauder, that would limit citywide officials, including the mayor, as well as borough presidents and members of the City Council to two consecutive four-year terms.

1996 - Public Debate
A law is passed requiring candidates who run for citywide office and participate in the Campaign Finance Program to participate in a series of public debates in order to receive public matching funds.

Primary Day, September 11, 2001, One World Financial Center. Photograph by Steven McCurry

1996 - Two Terms and You're Out
Voters reject a plan put forth by City Council Speaker Peter Vallone to delay the implementation of term limits and to allow officials three terms, instead of two.

2001 - Primary Date
The primary vote is originally scheduled for September 11. Voting begins that day but is halted after the attacks on the World Trade Center and postponed until September 25. With Primary Day always falling on the second Tuesday in September, some have urged the state to shift the election to keep it from ever falling on September 11. So far, such efforts have failed.

2001 - The Big Change
Because of term limits, all citywide officials and 37 of 51 City Council members are unable to run for reelection, creating the largest turnover in city history.

2003 - School Change
The state approves a law eliminating community school boards, replacing them with councils selected by parents.

2003 - Two More Years
The City Council adjusts the term limits law to allow some council members, who were elected in the middle of a term and would have had to leave office after serving fewer than eight years, to remain in their seats. The action cleared the way for Council Speaker Gifford Miller and four other members, who would have had to leave office in January, 2004, to seek re-election this November.

In four special elections on February 25th, voters in the Bronx and Brooklyn fill two vacant city council seats, in District 18 and District 43, for the remainder of each term, which is until the end of this year. In addition, two state assembly races are on the ballot also in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

With special elections, the rules that apply to regularly scheduled elections change completely. The nature of a special election changes the dynamics of the campaign process, both for the candidates and for the voters.

TIME MATTERS

Strategists love to say that campaigns have three resources: people (the candidate being the chief among them), money, and time. Of these three, the most valuable is time. It is the only resource that is non-renewable. (As we have seen, sometimes tragically, even candidates can be replaced). A compressed timeframe means a candidate must conduct an entire campaign in the time that under different circumstance might be spent choosing a campaign headquarters, hiring staff and picking out letterhead.

Less time to campaign does not change the ultimate goal: successfully communicating a winning message to persuadable voters. What it does mean is that the message gets shorter, the communication gets louder, and the voters become fewer in number. With less time to test different messages, or try different audiences, candidates are forced to hone in on one basic message, get that message out in a consistent, repetitive, frequent manner, and target it to the most high-interest, highly motivated, likely voters they can identify.

TURNOUT MATTERS

Turnout is the single most important factor affecting the outcome of any campaign. In most campaign surveys, pollsters measure the support a candidate has among the hard-core, "registered to vote on my eighteenth birthday," kind of voters. Then they measure support among the likely, "I try to vote, if I can, I will" kind. Then among the possible, "maybe, I'm not sure," and on and on. Based on the answers they get to the questions asked, they can put together models that can predict election results if the turnout is 17 percent, or 22 percent, or 31 percent. The only remaining question is who decides to show up. When campaign analysts wring their hands over the weather on Election Day, it is not superstition, it really can change the outcome of a close race.

Of course, none of that matters in a special election, because the turnout is easily predictable. If past elections are any indicator, it will be low. Historically, turnout is highest for general elections in a Presidential election year, next would be general elections in off years (no Presidential contest). On down would be local general elections, then party primaries, and at the very bottom would be a special election to fill a local office. Only the most interested, the most involved, the most dedicated, civic-minded individuals tend to show up to vote.

The two city council special elections are both the result of a council member getting elected to higher office. The contests come at a time when the city faces a number of crises; they also come just a few short months before the next scheduled primary election for all city council members. For both these reasons, the council races are being watched closely; the results could indicate how these most engaged of all voters feel about things right now, and how they may be feeling next fall.

Although low turnout can be discouraging in a democracy, it does mean the collective decision is among the most well-informed, well-educated choice in any election. And for the candidates, it means they can easily classify the pool of voters they need to reach.

LOCAL ISSUES MATTER

In legislative races, local issues are always important. In special elections, this is especially true. Special elections tend to shine a spotlight on the immediate time and place in which the election happens, regardless of the larger issues that might be facing the city, or the state. Whatever crisis or problem has been facing the district most recently will be foremost in the minds of the voters. This can be a good chance for communities to vent grievances; the danger is that the contest may be decided around a passing crisis, rather than the overall needs of the district.

In the assembly race in the 79th assembly district in the Bronx, the reason for the sudden vacancy may itself be the issue. Assemblymember Gloria Davis confessed to bribery charges, leaving her district with the task of replacing her. Issues of character, ethics, and propriety do not typically dominate a state assembly race, but in the wake of a recent scandal, the character question may be foremost in voters' minds.

NAME ID MATTERS

There are several steps to a winning campaign strategy, and identifying the voting bloc, and a winning message, are both certainly key. But before you can send out your message to those voters, you have to be sure that voters will have something to stick that message to, namely, your name.

In most campaigns, candidates vastly overestimate the importance of name identification. In the course of a normal campaign, by Election Day, both candidates have high name identification ratings among voters regardless of the results. In a special election, name ID actually can play a role. With less time to campaign and more candidates in the mix, voters can get understandably mixed up as they try to sort out multiple names and slogans.

In the special city council election in Brooklyn, there are six declared candidates; in the Bronx, there are three running for city council, although one has been knocked off the ballot. This means that the candidates who are known to voters -- those who have run before, or held office before -- will have a head start in the process of introducing themselves and making their case.

Name identification may very well be a factor in the 55th state assembly race in Brooklyn. The sitting assembly member, William Boyland, announced his decision to step down not long after being re-elected last fall. His son, William Boyland, Jr., is among the candidates vying to replace him in the special election. The Boyland family name is well known in New York politics; more importantly, it is a name that is familiar to voters in the district. In a special election, having a well-known, well-respected family name can be a distinct advantage.

PARTY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER

Although party remains a powerful voting cue in other elections, it plays virtually no role in special elections. Candidates run on specially coined slogans, or banner headings, instead of party labels. The slogans themselves are of little descriptive value, but they do place the burden of choice squarely with the voter, and not with party loyalty.

Special elections are a necessity in order to ensure representation for all city residents during times such as these when interim absences occur. Whatever differentiates them from other elections, they matter a great deal, not only for the ultimate goal of representative democracy, but also for what they can demonstrate to us about the voting process.

Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. Both are based in New York. Elizabeth Daniel is an associate counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, working on issues relating to campaign finance reform, voter choice, and ballot access.