Can change come to NY's political party duopoly?

Together, the two major political parties run New York's elections.

This is a fact of political life so basic, so long-standing that it goes unnoticed and unquestioned most of the time. Should it?

Once in a while, a relevant tension arises between Democrats and Republicans that sheds light on how those parties divide the public terrain. Right now, we get a glimpse of that tension in the maneuvering over a recount in Suffolk's 1st Congressional District.

In Nassau and Suffolk, the boards of election each have one Democratic and one Republican commissioner. In New York City, it's five Democrats and five Republicans. In Albany, two of each major party serve on the state board. This balance of power is set in law.

On the surface it sounds palpably fair - one syndicate monitors and offsets the other. They check each other's potential abuses.

Bipartisan is very different from nonpartisan, however. It means, for example, that those who staff the election apparatus are plucked only from the ranks of the party faithful.

According to one expert, Daniel Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University, "New York State is a bit of a national anomaly. But it's important to distinguish how things are done on a state and local level.

"The norm is to have a party-affiliated chief election official, usually the secretary of state. There are problems with that system. New York has got this bipartisan board. I don't think it's a good structure, either. It tends to result in stalemate when the board has to formulate rules," Tokaji said.

Wisconsin has what he sees as the best system - an odd-numbered panel of retired judges.

But, Tokaji adds: "On a local level, I actually think that the bipartisan structure can work better, where it's mostly about implementation of the rules. . . . Bipartisan boards have proven they can come to agreements across party lines."

As a matter of citizen participation, however, longtime New York City civic activist Henry Stern calls the status quo "an enormous mistake" that allows "collusion of two parties to the exclusion of competitors."

Most agree the system isn't about to change. In recent months, former Mayor Ed Koch has spearheaded a drive to replace bipartisan redistricting of legislative seats with nonpartisan redistricting. He seems to see nonpartisan elections in a similar light - but not with the same urgency.

"I would prefer to have a nonpartisan board, selected in a civil-service way, rather than the current situation," he said. "But I doubt that would happen for a long time.

"On the other hand, taking into consideration that an independent board would be better, there have been very, very few" cases of impropriety arising out of the current election process, Koch said.

Even if it didn't stain election outcomes, there have been cases of patronage abuse in this board system. At the Bronx election board a few years ago, a clerk was hired to a $155,455 executive post - even after city investigators told board members that she voted in the borough while living in the suburbs.

Earlier this year, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that more Americans believe it is time for a third party than at any other point in 15 years. Nearly one in three, the poll reported, said the two-party system is broken and a third party would be good for the country.

Looking past the details of Suffolk's recount, it may be an interesting time to ask the wider question - whether New York's party duopoly should remain this entrenched.