Mediaboss Marketing

If you ask New Yorkers why their city is the best, chances are youll get a spiel in return, but local elections will never make the list. In the most important municipality in the worlds most influential democracy, anemic voter turnout, uncompetitive general elections, and ham-fisted election administration mark the electoral landscape.

On its face, this is strange, given that residents care deeply about local matters that affect their everyday lives, such as public education, housing affordability, and public safety, among many others. They no doubt have differences in opinion about these issues. The problem rests in the citys electoral system. Reforming it would benefit New Yorkers of all political persuasions.

Last year, many cheered an uptick in turnout for the citys first primary elections to use ranked-choice voting, to 26.5% of eligible voters. Any increase is welcome news, yet closed primaries still exclude nearly one million voters unaffiliated with a political party, the second-largest group in the city. Novembers mayoral general election saw 23.3% of registered voters participate, a historic low. Many City Council races sported even less.

Voters mark their ballots at Frank McCourt High School, in New York, Tuesday, June 22, 2021. (Richard Drew/AP)

The election calendar is partly to blame for this poor showing. New Yorks off-cycle local races, held on odd-numbered years in between those for federal and state elections, markedly depresses voter participation. This not only weakens the mandate that political leaders enjoy, but has been shown to reduce demographic and political representativeness.

Uncompetitive elections, especially for City Council, also discourage voters from bothering to turn up to the polls. Whoever wins the Democratic primary usually cruises to an easy win come November, as Democrats comprise about two-thirds of the local electorate. But why should a national party label be so decisive in city elections, especially when city governments responsibilities differ so markedly from those of the national sovereign?

The lack of meaningful partisan competition impedes political innovation and favors special interests, especially public-sector unions. Their members mobilize to elect pliant leaders who will acquiesce to generous pay and work rules during collective bargaining negotiations. New Yorkers as a whole lose, as those in power cater to the small minority of voters and interests that help them get elected, not the bulk of non-voting citizens.

Worse still, for nearly a century, scandals, debacles and chronic ineptitude have characterized the citys election administration body, the Board of Elections, a situation leading lawmakers have called a national embarrassment. Just in the past few weeks, 17,000 voter registration updates were sent to voters containing the wrong state Senate and congressional districts, and a board investigation uncovered a Manhattanite who ordered and received more than 100 absentee ballots in the names of prominent figures over the course of two years.

Administrative reform has proven elusive, given that county party leaders use the board as a vehicle for political patronage and nepotism. Where elections are close, competent election administration is especially paramount to secure the legitimacy and finality that democracy requires.

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

Correcting these electoral woes would benefit New Yorkers of all parties and philosophies. Professional election administration, dynamic political competition and broad voter participation ought to be givens, not ideals.

Some straightforward fixes would have dramatic results. Mandatory qualifications for Board of Elections commissioners and staff and meaningful accountability mechanisms are long overdue. Syncing the local election cycle with that of federal and state races would not only likely double turnout, it would save the city millions, as local elections could piggyback on the federal funds used to hold congressional and presidential elections. Endorsements from the mayor and local organizations could be printed next to names on ballots, giving lesser-informed voters information to match their preferences with candidates values and policy positions.

More ambitious structural reforms would open up local elections to a richer array of candidates and parties. One option recently adopted in Alaska, final-five voting, would enable all registered voters to select candidates, regardless of party, in a qualifying round primary. The highest four or five vote-getters would then compete in a general election that uses ranked-choice voting to elect a single winner with a majority.

City Council races might alternatively eliminate primaries and adopt the multi-winner form of ranked-choice voting, called the single transferable vote (STV), to elect councilmembers from larger multimember districts. Smaller political groups could secure seats, resulting in proportional representation, or a Council reflective of voters overall preferences.

In fact, this innovation has precedent in New Yorks history. Between 1937 and 1947, elections for City Council used STV. Democrats retained a majority, but at least four parties were represented during this period of proportional representation, which also saw the election of the first Black councilmember, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., as well as the first woman, Genevieve Beavers Earle. Legislation passed routinely with broad majority support, even as raucous chamber debates between neighborhood politicos, avowed socialists, and conservative Republicans captivated the attention of more than 750,000 radio listeners.

Local elections can regain the importance and excitement that they deserve, but not without reform.

Ketcham is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Go here to read the rest:
Toward a more responsive NYC democracy New York Daily News - New York Daily News