Thank you Professor Allen for your timely post. Drudge, WSJ and NYT sites headlined Madini as a transformational figure today, even a presidential contender. While as a former NY'er I think better a little socialism than the ole' Republican ode to free markets et. al.--esp since the party obviously doesn't stand for any of that anymore--the idea that Mandini is now a national political figure except being splashed across our current "media environment" after a couple of intra-city victories--for city council or House of Representatives, whatever--is ludicrous in two ways. Either that socialism should go mainstream for Democrats when the Progressive wing always starts a new campaign season by declaring this is the year going full socialism is the answer, or, that NYC is representative in practically any way of the entire country besides an upscale version of Portland minus the financial district downtown.
The parties share a cadre of professional campaigners, advocates, and office-holders both elected and civil service, who aren't focused so much on an outright looting of government coffers, but drawing as many salaries and promotable careers from the two party system as possible. It's stale because they run the same playbook over and over, no matter that it simply does not work anymore. Still, they focus on putting on a good show/campaign so that they can resume power, and then to do whatever they can get away with--I'm talking about the parties themselves. However, it's clear that the actual electorate at large is not going to indulge these initiatives, at least this Fall. Things in general have gone far beyond that by now--prices will continue to go up this summer, Iran is unresolved, US citizens are going hungry, and the worst news for Republicans is that there are still four more months of Trump until the midterms; just today having held hostage affordable housing as ransom for a bill that will allow him to fix the midterms. Anyone attempting to reimpose a status quo is going to get crushed. And even Mandini can't change the fact that most regular NY'ers have been or are currently being priced out of the city. It's been going on for decades, and unfortunately public grocery stores aren't going to change that. We need something new starting with a government that works for most citizens, city, state or federal.
That's exactly right, I should have just written that (if I could have thought of it!). Thanks Danielle, and sorry for my frustration--I've seen all this before. But I congratulate the Mayor for freezing rents for a bit--although of course the smaller landlords are going to suffer and short tenants on maintenance. But the annual 5 to 7% rent hikes under the rent stabilization law add up really quick over just several years. And many tenants under the same laws enjoy way below market rates at the coast of other renters. These factors have been accumulating for decades, really since WWII, and Manhattan was unaffordable for "normies" (as the net calls us) a long time ago. I have only sympathy for those of us still hanging on in the City.
Thanks for Renovator, as always. Here in CA the open primary has pros and cons. As our recent experience shows, it does make it possible for a minority party candidate to reach the general election. But it does not eliminate the big money buy-your-way-in problem that primary elections always have. Please consider the old-fashioned precinct caucus process, like we used to have in Minnesota: Actual people have to be motivated enough to turn out one evening to talk with local neighbors and advocate for a candidate. This is a party-based caucus so it yields a party nominee for the general through actual grassroots participation. Are the total numbers much smaller than the primary election route? Yes. But the people who participate are well informed, motivated and have open debates about pros and cons. It yields better candidates (almost always) and a meaningful general, without the big money buy in.
So California big money problem has a lot of California specific features. Insanely high campaign finance limits for starters. Limit per donor is something like 80k for gubernatorial. In Massachusetts and Washington state it’s 1k for the first and I think 1.5k for the second. Produces a totally different environment for money in politics. We have caucuses in Massachusetts. They would still be a part of our process on the all party primary but only to control party endorsement, not to control who can be on the ballot in the first place, which is the current system in MA. We have literally the most restrictive system in the country.
Voltaire reportedly had something relevant to say about the importance of diversity in matters in which powerful opinions move people to oppress each other. His quote is reported in a variety of variations:
“If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other’s throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace.”
“If there were only one religion in" the land "there would be danger of despotism, if there were two, they would cut each other’s throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.”
This piece reminds me of how James Madison emphasized how diversity was vital to the strength of the Union. Madison repeatedly explicitly emphasized the importance of diversity, including to convince people to ratify our Constitution. His words of wisdom are as relevant today as they were in his day.
In Federalist No. 10, Madison highlighted that our Constitution was designed to provide “a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government,” i.e., political remedies to the problems that arise by virtue of the general rule of majority rule. “The diversity in the faculties of” diverse people, “from which the rights of property originate, is” an “insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. [Even so, t]he protection of these [diverse] faculties is the first object of government.”
In Federalist No. 51, Madison emphasized that diversity is vital to the strength of our Union, and diversity and union are essential to securing justice for all. Madison emphasized (repeatedly) that “Justice is the end [i.e., the ultimate goal] of government.” So Madison expressly highlighted that diversity was essential to the security of both “civil rights” and “religious rights” and the security was provided by ensuring “the multiplicity of interests” and “the multiplicity of sects.”
"Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security” of both civil right and religious rights “will depend on the number [diversity] of interests and sects,” which, in turn, will “depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government."
In Federalist No. 56, Madison emphasized that “the great extent of the United States, the number of their inhabitants, and the diversity of their interests” are essential to the strength of the Union. “Taking each State by itself, its laws are the same, and its interests but little diversified.” The point of the union of diverse states was to create “a nation whose affairs are in the highest degree diversified and complicated.”
Putting an all party primary in MA while Republicans gerrrymander all over is unilateral disarmament. We don't need to accidentally elect a Republican Governor like almost happened in California's open primary. There needs to be a clause delaying implementation of an open primary until other states have adopted Fair voting.
Yes but we need other changes too. Like we need to liberalize the rules for forming new parties. Parties have acted like monopolies and gotten laws established that make it VERY hard for competitors to emerge. It classic monopolist behavior
In Europe, "challenger" parties are emerging all the time at the moment. That was always the case in mainland Europe, but even in the UK now. America seems structurally different, however, and makes it seem impossible that the duopoly will be broken.
New York holds a closed primary, in which Mamdani first beat Cuomo (and seven others, including Brad Lander. Mamdani and Cuomo faced off again in the general, which also included Sliwa and a couple others.
The one thing the two parties agree on is that there should be two and only two parties.
We have the open primary system in the city of Chicago, which is effectively a one-party monopoly as much as China or North Korea, and occasionally it produces a competitive election, but not really. There’s no genuine pressure on the Democrats in Chicago or Illinois to do anything but drive the state into bankruptcy, as well as the city. If you’re one of those who like one-party rule, then that’s nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if you’re actually looking to improve governance, this is no panacea based on our experience.
Of course, the status quo isn’t working either. Depending on your politics, the disaster that just happened in New York with three Democratic socialists winning Congressional primaries, thus metastasizing their cancer within the Democrats, shows that even partisan primaries result in ruinous results.
What we really need is a third party that represents the sensible center and brings common sense back to government. That’s my goal.
Thank you Professor Allen for your timely post. Drudge, WSJ and NYT sites headlined Madini as a transformational figure today, even a presidential contender. While as a former NY'er I think better a little socialism than the ole' Republican ode to free markets et. al.--esp since the party obviously doesn't stand for any of that anymore--the idea that Mandini is now a national political figure except being splashed across our current "media environment" after a couple of intra-city victories--for city council or House of Representatives, whatever--is ludicrous in two ways. Either that socialism should go mainstream for Democrats when the Progressive wing always starts a new campaign season by declaring this is the year going full socialism is the answer, or, that NYC is representative in practically any way of the entire country besides an upscale version of Portland minus the financial district downtown.
The parties share a cadre of professional campaigners, advocates, and office-holders both elected and civil service, who aren't focused so much on an outright looting of government coffers, but drawing as many salaries and promotable careers from the two party system as possible. It's stale because they run the same playbook over and over, no matter that it simply does not work anymore. Still, they focus on putting on a good show/campaign so that they can resume power, and then to do whatever they can get away with--I'm talking about the parties themselves. However, it's clear that the actual electorate at large is not going to indulge these initiatives, at least this Fall. Things in general have gone far beyond that by now--prices will continue to go up this summer, Iran is unresolved, US citizens are going hungry, and the worst news for Republicans is that there are still four more months of Trump until the midterms; just today having held hostage affordable housing as ransom for a bill that will allow him to fix the midterms. Anyone attempting to reimpose a status quo is going to get crushed. And even Mandini can't change the fact that most regular NY'ers have been or are currently being priced out of the city. It's been going on for decades, and unfortunately public grocery stores aren't going to change that. We need something new starting with a government that works for most citizens, city, state or federal.
We need to educate the media to look at the actual number of voters participating in these primary victories…. Reporting in this domain is a disaster
That's exactly right, I should have just written that (if I could have thought of it!). Thanks Danielle, and sorry for my frustration--I've seen all this before. But I congratulate the Mayor for freezing rents for a bit--although of course the smaller landlords are going to suffer and short tenants on maintenance. But the annual 5 to 7% rent hikes under the rent stabilization law add up really quick over just several years. And many tenants under the same laws enjoy way below market rates at the coast of other renters. These factors have been accumulating for decades, really since WWII, and Manhattan was unaffordable for "normies" (as the net calls us) a long time ago. I have only sympathy for those of us still hanging on in the City.
Yes, I'm in! And, Veterans for All Voters is "all-in" on the All Candidate Primary ballot measure in Mass. Keep up the great work Danielle and team!!
Appreciate all your leadership!
Great initiative, Danielle. It dovetails with my own worries about the two party system, and the linking of political issues, presenting us with false dilemmas. https://martinpuchner.substack.com/p/false-dilemmas?r=4w4id7&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Thanks for Renovator, as always. Here in CA the open primary has pros and cons. As our recent experience shows, it does make it possible for a minority party candidate to reach the general election. But it does not eliminate the big money buy-your-way-in problem that primary elections always have. Please consider the old-fashioned precinct caucus process, like we used to have in Minnesota: Actual people have to be motivated enough to turn out one evening to talk with local neighbors and advocate for a candidate. This is a party-based caucus so it yields a party nominee for the general through actual grassroots participation. Are the total numbers much smaller than the primary election route? Yes. But the people who participate are well informed, motivated and have open debates about pros and cons. It yields better candidates (almost always) and a meaningful general, without the big money buy in.
So California big money problem has a lot of California specific features. Insanely high campaign finance limits for starters. Limit per donor is something like 80k for gubernatorial. In Massachusetts and Washington state it’s 1k for the first and I think 1.5k for the second. Produces a totally different environment for money in politics. We have caucuses in Massachusetts. They would still be a part of our process on the all party primary but only to control party endorsement, not to control who can be on the ballot in the first place, which is the current system in MA. We have literally the most restrictive system in the country.
Voltaire reportedly had something relevant to say about the importance of diversity in matters in which powerful opinions move people to oppress each other. His quote is reported in a variety of variations:
“If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other’s throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace.”
“If there were only one religion in" the land "there would be danger of despotism, if there were two, they would cut each other’s throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.”
This piece reminds me of how James Madison emphasized how diversity was vital to the strength of the Union. Madison repeatedly explicitly emphasized the importance of diversity, including to convince people to ratify our Constitution. His words of wisdom are as relevant today as they were in his day.
In Federalist No. 10, Madison highlighted that our Constitution was designed to provide “a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government,” i.e., political remedies to the problems that arise by virtue of the general rule of majority rule. “The diversity in the faculties of” diverse people, “from which the rights of property originate, is” an “insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. [Even so, t]he protection of these [diverse] faculties is the first object of government.”
In Federalist No. 51, Madison emphasized that diversity is vital to the strength of our Union, and diversity and union are essential to securing justice for all. Madison emphasized (repeatedly) that “Justice is the end [i.e., the ultimate goal] of government.” So Madison expressly highlighted that diversity was essential to the security of both “civil rights” and “religious rights” and the security was provided by ensuring “the multiplicity of interests” and “the multiplicity of sects.”
"Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security” of both civil right and religious rights “will depend on the number [diversity] of interests and sects,” which, in turn, will “depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government."
In Federalist No. 56, Madison emphasized that “the great extent of the United States, the number of their inhabitants, and the diversity of their interests” are essential to the strength of the Union. “Taking each State by itself, its laws are the same, and its interests but little diversified.” The point of the union of diverse states was to create “a nation whose affairs are in the highest degree diversified and complicated.”
Putting an all party primary in MA while Republicans gerrrymander all over is unilateral disarmament. We don't need to accidentally elect a Republican Governor like almost happened in California's open primary. There needs to be a clause delaying implementation of an open primary until other states have adopted Fair voting.
Is a third party a realistic prospect?
Yes but we need other changes too. Like we need to liberalize the rules for forming new parties. Parties have acted like monopolies and gotten laws established that make it VERY hard for competitors to emerge. It classic monopolist behavior
In Europe, "challenger" parties are emerging all the time at the moment. That was always the case in mainland Europe, but even in the UK now. America seems structurally different, however, and makes it seem impossible that the duopoly will be broken.
New York holds a closed primary, in which Mamdani first beat Cuomo (and seven others, including Brad Lander. Mamdani and Cuomo faced off again in the general, which also included Sliwa and a couple others.
Yes, I consider that NYC case a defact top two since Cuomo didn't abide by the primary result....
The one thing the two parties agree on is that there should be two and only two parties.
We have the open primary system in the city of Chicago, which is effectively a one-party monopoly as much as China or North Korea, and occasionally it produces a competitive election, but not really. There’s no genuine pressure on the Democrats in Chicago or Illinois to do anything but drive the state into bankruptcy, as well as the city. If you’re one of those who like one-party rule, then that’s nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if you’re actually looking to improve governance, this is no panacea based on our experience.
Of course, the status quo isn’t working either. Depending on your politics, the disaster that just happened in New York with three Democratic socialists winning Congressional primaries, thus metastasizing their cancer within the Democrats, shows that even partisan primaries result in ruinous results.
What we really need is a third party that represents the sensible center and brings common sense back to government. That’s my goal.